JRC Scientific and Technical Reports 
 

Environmental Improvement Potential of 
Textiles (IMPRO‐Textiles) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental Improvement Potential of 
Textiles (IMPRO‐Textiles) 
 
 
 
Editors: 
Oliver WOLF, Mauro CORDELLA, Nicholas DODD, Jiannis KOUGOULIS (1) 
 
Authors: 
Adrien BETON, Debora DIAS, Laura FARRANT, Thomas GIBON, Yannick LE GUERN (2) 
 
Marie DESAXCE, Anne PERWUELTZ, Ines BOUFATEH (3) 

(1) European Commission JRC – IPTS

Address: Calle Inca Garcilaso 3, E-41092
Seville, Spain
Tel. +34 954488284
Internet: http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu.
E-mail: jrc-ipts-eippcb@ec.europa.eu

2
( ) Bio Intelligence Service
Address: 1 rue Berthelot 94200
Ivry sur Seine, France
Tel: + 33 (0) 1 56202898
Internet: www.biois.com
E-mail: yannick.leguern@biois.com
adrien.beton@biois.com

3
( ) ENSAIT, Ecole Nationale Supérieure
des Arts et Industries Textiles
Address: 2 allée Louise et Victor Champier
BP 30329 59056 Roubaix CEDEX 1,
France
Internet: www.ensait.fr
 Contents
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................9
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................21
1 TEXTILE CONSUMPTION AND DISTRIBUTION IN EU-27 .................................................23
1.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................23
1.2 Scope and methodology ...........................................................................................................25
1.3 Consumption breakdown results ..............................................................................................27
1.4 Data uncertainties, gaps and limitations ...................................................................................31
1.5 Key points of the market analysis.............................................................................................31
2 THE TEXTILE LCA MODEL: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ............................................33
2.1 Presentation of the textile LCA model .....................................................................................33
2.2 Model description.....................................................................................................................35
2.2.1 Production and processing phase ...................................................................................35
2.2.2 Distribution phase ..........................................................................................................49
2.2.3 Use phase .......................................................................................................................52
2.2.4 End-of-life ......................................................................................................................59
2.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment .................................................................................................63
2.4 Limitations of the model ..........................................................................................................66
2.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................68
3 RESULTS OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO ..............................................................................71
3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................71
3.2 Focus on the production phase .................................................................................................74
3.2.1 Breakdown of the environmental impacts by product types...........................................74
3.2.2 Breakdown of the environmental impacts by fibre types ...............................................75
3.2.3 Comparison of different fibre types for selected environmental impact categories .......76
3.3 Focus on the use phase .............................................................................................................82
3.3.1 Environmental impacts of the use phase depending on the textile category ..................82
3.3.2 Environmental impacts of the use phase depending on the process ...............................82
4 IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL OF THE EU-27 TEXTILES MARKET.................................85
4.1 Introduction and Methodology .................................................................................................85
4.2 Preliminary technology and options review .............................................................................85
4.3 Improvement options for the production and processing phase ...............................................91
4.3.1 Reducing agrochemical use............................................................................................91
4.3.2 Alternative crop cultivation............................................................................................96
4.3.3 Reducing consumption of sizing chemicals ...................................................................99
4.3.4 Replacing chemicals with enzymes..............................................................................101
4.3.5 Alternative knitting techniques ....................................................................................104
4.3.6 Dye controller and low liquor ratio dyeing machines ..................................................108
4.3.7 Water recycling ............................................................................................................110
4.4 Improvement options for the distribution phase .....................................................................113
4.4.1 Reducing air freight......................................................................................................113
4.5 Improvement options for the use phase..................................................................................115
4.5.1 Changing consumer behaviour.....................................................................................115
4.5.2 Improvement of washing/drying appliances efficiency................................................122
4.6 Improvement options for the end-of-life phase ......................................................................125
4.6.1 Promotion of recycling and reuse.................................................................................125
4.7 Case study ON FIBRE BLENDING ......................................................................................128
4.7.1 Fibre blends..................................................................................................................128
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................133
5.1 The most promising improvement options .............................................................................133
5.1.1 Environmental improvement potential of the options ..................................................133
5.1.2 Combination of improvement options..........................................................................137
5.2 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................139
5.3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................140
REFERENCES .......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ANNEXES.................................................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Annex 1: Market data ........................................................................................................................154

1
 Annex 2: Normalisation of the environmental impacts of the textile life cycle for the baseline
scenario..................................................................................................................................169
Annex 3: Detailed results ...................................................................................................................170
Annex 4: Glossary...............................................................................................................................185

2
 List of tables
Table 1: Fibre types and materials used in the baseline scenario of the study and in the evaluation of
improvement options ............................................................................................................................ 10
Table 2: Potential reduction of the environmental impacts due to the improvement options considered in
this study. Results are expressed with reference to the ReCiPe's endpoint indicators and in
comparison with the baseline scenario ................................................................................................. 16
Table 3: Best improvement options to decrease the environmental impacts of the textile life cycle. Results
are expressed with reference to the ReCiPe's midpoint indicators and in comparison with the
baseline scenario................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 4: Market figures for imported and exported textile and clothing ............................................................ 23
Table 5: List of broad textile product categories ................................................................................................ 27
Table 6: Percentage breakdown of consumption for clothing textile products................................................... 29
Table 7: Percentage breakdown of consumption for household textile products................................................ 29
Table 8: Calculation of the environmental impacts of first- and second-hand products in the textile LCA
model .................................................................................................................................................... 35
Table 9: Data sources used to model the production and processing of cotton fabric ........................................ 38
Table 10: Data sources used to model the production and processing of wool fabric .......................................... 39
Table 11: Data sources used to model the production and processing of polyester fabric ................................... 40
Table 12: Data sources used to model the production and processing of polyamide fabric ................................. 41
Table 13: Data sources used to model the production and processing of acrylic fabric ....................................... 42
Table 14: Data sources used to model the production and processing of silk fabric ............................................ 43
Table 15: Data sources used to model the production and processing of viscose fabric ...................................... 44
Table 16: Data sources used to model the production and processing of flax fabric............................................ 45
Table 17: Data sources used to model the production and processing of polypropylene fabric ........................... 46
Table 18: Fabric losses from cutting process according to Ensait ........................................................................ 48
Table 19: Data sources used to model the production and processing of carpets ................................................. 49
Table 20: Sources of end product imports ............................................................................................................ 50
Table 21: Share of import areas according to product types................................................................................. 50
Table 22: Average distance for major textile import sources in km ..................................................................... 51
Table 23: Distances taken into account according to product type and transportation mode in km ..................... 51
Table 24: Standard and real life characteristics .................................................................................................... 53
Table 25: Washing, drying and ironing parameters for the 10 most important categories in volume .................. 54
Table 26: Typical composition of a powder detergent and LCI data used for modelling..................................... 55
Table 27: Packaging used for 1 kg of powder detergent and LCI datasets used................................................... 55
Table 28: Direct emissions to water from 100 kg of detergents according to....................................................... 56
Table 29: Fraction of households connected to a waste water treatment facility in % ......................................... 56
Table 30: Direct emissions to water per 100 kg of detergents considered in the textile LCA model ................... 57
Table 31: Rate of tumble dryer ownership in different EU-27 Member States .................................................... 58
Table 32: End-of-life routes of municipal solid waste.......................................................................................... 59
Table 33: Rescaled shares of the end-of-life routes of interest for the disposal of textile waste .......................... 60
Table 34: Midpoint and endpoint indicators considered in ReCiPe ..................................................................... 65
Table 35: Qualitative assessment of data specificity according to fibre type and production step....................... 67
Table 36: Summary of the main baseline parameters of the textile LCA model .................................................. 70
Table 37: Environmental impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27 according to the midpoint and
endpoint indicators of ReCiPe .............................................................................................................. 71
Table 38: Preliminary list of improvement options for the production and processing phase.............................. 85
Table 39: Preliminary list of improvement options for the distribution phase ..................................................... 88
Table 40: Preliminary list of improvement options for the use phase .................................................................. 89
Table 41: Preliminary list of improvement options for the end-of-life phase....................................................... 90
Table 42: Parameters considered for the cotton cultivation scenarios .................................................................. 92
Table 43: Scaling parameters for the life cycle inventories.................................................................................. 93
Table 44: Global uptake of cotton transgenic crops between 2002 and 2005....................................................... 94
Table 45: Key assumptions for the modelling of flax and hemp cultivation, annual values ................................ 97
Table 46: Important enzymes for textile application .......................................................................................... 102
Table 47: Input parameters of the 'baseline' and 'enzyme' scenarios .................................................................. 103
Table 48: Energy inputs and fabric losses for different knitting techniques....................................................... 106
Table 49: Parameters for water and chemical inputs in the dyeing phase .......................................................... 109
Table 50: Costs related to installing the low liquor ratio dyeing technique or a dye machine controller in a
medium sized plant............................................................................................................................. 110
Table 51: Share of washing temperatures for the various scenarios considered in the analysis ......................... 116
Table 52: Parameters affected by the reduction of the use of tumble drying...................................................... 119
Table 53: Load capacity parameters in the different load capacity scenarios..................................................... 120

3
Table 54: Parameters affected by the use of energy efficient washing machines and tumble dryers ................. 123
Table 55: Setting of parameters for promotion of recycling and reuse scenarios ............................................... 126
Table 56: Product parameters according to fibre type ........................................................................................ 129
Table 57: Ratio of product lifetime in relation to fibre type ............................................................................... 130
Table 58: Environmental improvement potentials of the different options considered in the study and for the
endpoint indicators of ReCiPe. Values expressed in % and in comparison with the baseline
scenario............................................................................................................................................... 133
Table 59: Most promising options for reducing the environmental impacts of textiles according to the
midpoint indicators of ReCiPe............................................................................................................ 135
Table 60: Highest reduction potentials for the improvement options that concern the production and
processing phase ................................................................................................................................. 135
Table 61: Highest reduction potentials for the improvement option that concerns the distribution phase ......... 136
Table 62: Highest reduction potentials for the improvement option that concerns the end-of-life phase........... 136
Table 63: Overview of the improvement options included in the scenario combining different improvement
options ................................................................................................................................................ 138

4
 List of figures

Figure 1: Percentage breakdown of consumption by fibre type for clothing and household textiles................... 11
Figure 2: Stages considered in the LCA model of textile production and consumption ...................................... 11
Figure 3: Impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27 according to the ReCiPe's midpoint (a) and endpoint
(b) indicators. The percentage contribution of the different life cycle stages is reported..................... 13
Figure 4: Maximum environmental benefits resulting from the combination of the improvement options........ 18
Figure 5: Index of production, trend cycle for the EU-27................................................................................... 24
Figure 6: Breakdown of the European textile market .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 7: Consumption of different categories of clothing and household textile products in 2007 in EU-27.... 28
Figure 8: Consumption by materials for clothing and household textiles ............................................................ 30
Figure 9: Percentage breakdown of consumption by material for clothing and household textiles ..................... 30
Figure 10: System boundaries of the textile LCA model....................................................................................... 33
Figure 11: Schematic overview of textile product manufacture ............................................................................ 36
Figure 12: Main life cycle steps in cotton fabric production ................................................................................. 37
Figure 13: Main life cycle steps in wool fabric production.................................................................................... 39
Figure 14: Main life cycle steps in polyester fabric production............................................................................. 40
Figure 15: Main life cycle steps in polyamide fabric production........................................................................... 41
Figure 16: Main life cycle steps in acrylic fabric production................................................................................. 42
Figure 17: Main life cycle steps in silk fabric production...................................................................................... 43
Figure 18: Main life cycle steps in viscose fabric production................................................................................ 44
Figure 19: Main life cycle steps in flax fabric production ..................................................................................... 45
Figure 20: Main life cycle steps in polypropylene production............................................................................... 46
Figure 21: Tumble drying habits of residents in Poland and the UK ..................................................................... 52
Figure 22: End-of-life routes of textile waste in EU27 .......................................................................................... 60
Figure 23: General Life Cycle Scheme for Postconsumer Textile Waste .............................................................. 61
Figure 24: Midpoints and endpoints levels relative to emissions of greenhouse gases.......................................... 63
Figure 25: The ReCiPe framework ........................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 26: Environmental impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27 according to the midpoint indicators
of ReCiPe ............................................................................................................................................. 72
Figure 27: Environmental impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27 according to the endpoint indicators
of ReCiPe ............................................................................................................................................. 72
Figure 28: Breakdown by product types of the environmental impacts due to the production phase.................... 74
Figure 29: Breakdown by material of the environmental impacts due to the production phase ............................ 75
Figure 30: Impact on climate change due to the production of fabric from different fibre types .......................... 77
Figure 31: Impact on human toxicity due to the production of fabric from different fibre types .......................... 78
Figure 32: Impact on freshwater ecotoxicity due to the production of fabric from different fibre types ............... 79
Figure 33: Impact on human health due to the production of fabric from different fibre types............................. 80
Figure 34: Impact on ecosystem diversity due to the production of fabric from different fibre types................... 81
Figure 35: Impact on resource availability due to the production of fabric from different fibre types .................. 81
Figure 36: Impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27, for the use phase, broken down by textile category ..... 82
Figure 37: Impacts of the use phase of textile consumption in the EU-27, for the use phase, broken down by
process .................................................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 38: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from different cotton types......... 94
Figure 39: Welfare gain from GM cotton as a percentage of total world GDP welfare gain................................. 95
Figure 40: Global organic cotton production and trade in tonnes of fibres............................................................ 96
Figure 41: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from cotton substitution ............. 98
Figure 42: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU27 resulting from sizing chemical use
reduction............................................................................................................................................. 101
Figure 43: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from the enzyme use scenario........ 104
Figure 44: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from alternative knitting
techniques........................................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 45: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from water consumption reduction
scenario in the dyeing process ............................................................................................................ 109
Figure 46: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from the water recycling scenario.. 112
Figure 47: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from the different
transportation scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 48: Temperature settings of washing machines in European countries .................................................... 116

5
Figure 49: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from reduced washing
temperatures........................................................................................................................................ 117
Figure 50: Number of drying cycles per week in summer and winter in the EU-27 ............................................ 118
Figure 51: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from tumble drying reduction ........ 119
Figure 52: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from increased load capacity.......... 121
Figure 53: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from increased efficiency of
washing machines and dryers ............................................................................................................. 124
Figure 54: Changes in life cycle impacts of textile in the EU-27 resulting from increased collection of
clothing waste ..................................................................................................................................... 127
Figure 55: Change in life cycle impacts resulting from wearing a T-shirt made of a 50:50 fibre blend of cotton
and polyester (CO/PES) or a T-shirt made of polyester (PES) ........................................................... 130
Figure 56: Highest reduction potentials for improvement options that concern the use phase ............................ 136
Figure 57: Changes in life cycle impacts of textile use in the EU-27 for combined improvement options ......... 139
Figure 58: Impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27, midpoint indicators, normalised with respect to the
estimated burdens generated by an 'average' citizen of the world. EU-27 population: 499.8 million. 169

6
 Results presented here are based on circumstances and assumptions that were considered
during the study. If these facts, circumstances and assumptions come to change, results may
differ. It is strongly recommended to consider results from a global perspective keeping in
mind assumptions taken rather than specific conclusions out of context.

7
 Summary

SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION

Regardless of the life cycle stage, all products and services inevitably produce an impact on the
environment. By identifying critical issues present in the life cycle of products and taking constructive
response actions in practice, the European Integrated Product Policy (IPP) aims to reduce the
environmental impacts of products and to improve their performances with a "life cycle thinking". The
first action taken under IPP was to identify the market products contribute most to the environmental
impacts in Europe.

Completed in May 2006 by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), the
Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO) study was conducted from a life cycle perspective. The
EIPRO study indentified food and drink, transport and private housing as the highest areas of impact.
Together they account for 70–80 % of the environmental impact of consumption. Of the remaining
areas, clothing dominated across all impact categories with a contribution of 2–10 %.

While initially analysing the current life cycle impacts of products, studies on the Environmental
Improvement of Products (IMPRO) have been developed in order to identify technically and
socioeconomically feasible means of improving the environmental performance of products.

As identified by the EIPRO study as a priority group which makes a significant contribution to
environmental impacts in Europe, textile products are the focus of this study.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of this study are to: 
 identify the market share and consumption of textile products in the EU-27;
 estimate and compare the potential environmental impacts of textile products consumed in
the EU-27, taking into account the entire value chain (life cycle) of these products;
 identify the main environmental improvement options and estimate their potential;
 assess the socioeconomic impacts of the identified options.

THE TEXTILES MARKET IN THE EU-27

A major challenge in this project was to appropriately tune the level of detail of the textile sector in
order to identify individual products for which to gather realistic data on their production and use
patterns. In the fulfilment of this task, it was very important to cope with the uncertainty of
environmental data and the lack of detailed market information.

Apparent consumption figures in Europe were determined for all the textile products. The products
were categorised by broad types and further broken down by their most important characteristics (e.g.
fibre type, product type). The initial phase of the study thus consisted in gathering exhaustive market
data of textile products in Europe. The EUROPROM database was used as the main data source,
focusing on clothing and household sectors. EUROPROM combines information on the production
(PRODCOM database) and information on the import and export of manufactured products in the EU
(COMEXT database). Apparent consumption in the EU-27 was calculated as production plus imports
minus exports.

In total, 101 clothing product categories and 27 household product categories were identified. The
available market data was extracted for each one. For simplification, major end product categories
were identified for both sectors from the full list of products presented in the database. In total,
clothing textiles were broken down into 63 different end product categories. As each of the household
textile products listed were quite distinct, 27 end product categories were maintained. A breakdown by

9
Summary

major materials involved was also ascribed to each end product type (e.g. trousers, shorts, shirts,
blouses). The baseline scenario of the model covered:
 9 fibre types, i.e. cotton, wool, viscose, flax, silk, polyester, polyamide, acrylic and
polypropylene;
 polyurethane/polypropylene, feathers, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

Two additional fibre types were addressed as improvement options: hemp and polycotton (i.e.
polyester/cotton mix). Table 1 recapitulates which fibre types and materials were addressed in the
model.

Table 1: Fibre types and materials used in the baseline scenario of the study and in the evaluation of
improvement options

Fibre types  Materials 

Cotton 
Wool 
Viscose 
Flax  Polyurethane/Polypropylene 
Baseline scenario  Silk  Feathers 
Polyester  PVC 
Polyamide 
Acrylic 
Polypropylene 
Hemp 
Improvement options  ‐ 
Polycotton (Polyester/Cotton) 

In terms of breakdown per item (by mass), the analysis of the textile market revealed that tops,
bottoms and underwear are the most significant items covering all together more than 78 % of the
clothing market. For household textiles, floor coverings clearly dominate the market (38 %). The
analysis also highlighted that the volume of clothing, on a weight basis, is almost twice that of
household textiles. Average apparent annual consumption was estimated at 9 547 000 tonnes of textile
products (19.1 kg / citizen and year), of which 6 754 000 are clothes and 2 793 000 are household
textiles.

In terms of clothing textiles production weight, the market is dominated by cotton, which accounts for
more than 43 % of all fibres, followed by polyester (16 %). Acrylic, wool and viscose represent
approximately 10 % of the market each. The ratio between natural and synthetic fibre is 54:46.

For household textiles, cotton and polyester are the most common fibres accounting for approximately
28 % each, followed by polyamide (23 %). In contrast to clothes, acrylic and polypropylene feature
significantly in this area, accounting for nearly 30 % as they are important fibres found in carpets. The
ratio between natural and synthetic fibre is 30:70 (see Figure 1).

10
 Summary

100
PVC
90
Polypropylene
80
Polyurethane/Polypropylene

MAN‐MADE
SYNTHETIC
70 Polyamide
60 Acrylic

50
Polyester
%
Viscose
40
Feather
30
Flax

NATURAL
NATURAL
20 Silk
10 Wool or other animal hair
0 Cotton
Clothing Household

Figure 1: Percentage breakdown of consumption by fibre type for clothing and household textiles

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The environmental performance of textile products in the EU-27 was then assessed according to the
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology and following a bottom-up approach. A LCA model was
developed in order to evaluate impacts of both first- and second-hand textiles (1). Potential impacts
associated with the overall life cycle of textiles consumed in EU-27 in 2007 (baseline scenario) were
taken into account. Figure 2 shows a schematic representation of the life cycle stages considered in the
LCA model.

Production and processing
of end‐products

Distribution

Use  Use 
of first‐hand textiles of second‐hand textiles

Reuse
Recycling
Disposal
(Incineration, landfill)

Figure 2: Stages considered in the LCA model of textile production and consumption

(1) Second-hand textiles refer to products that are reused after they reach the end-of life phase.

11
Summary

The life cycle impacts of the textiles value chain were thus analysed within the four phases described
below:
 Production and processing. This phase includes the production or extraction of raw
materials (e.g. cultivation of fibre-producing crops), leading to the processing of the fibre,
followed by the confection of yarn and fabric, and finally the finishing, cutting and sewing
steps.
 Distribution. This phase takes into consideration the distribution of textile end-products,
based on a distribution scenario developed for textiles in the EU-27.
 Use. This phase takes into account consumer behaviour and the use patterns of textile end
products. This step incorporates the impacts of washing, tumble drying and ironing. These
impacts occur during the entire lifetime of textiles following production, measured in
number of washes.
 End-of-life. This phase includes reuse, recycling, incineration and landfilling of textiles.
However, despite it can be considered an end-of-life business, the reuse of old items was
taken into account for the calculation of the real consumption of textiles, so that a discount
was implicitly assigned to the impacts from the production stage.

Environmental data on each of these phases were gathered from the literature. Life cycle input and
output data were obtained from the Ecoinvent 2.0 database (Ecoinvent Centre, 2007) with the
exception of the end-of-life treatment processes, which were modelled using the WISARD 4.2 tool
(Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2007). The life cycle impact assessment was based on the ReCiPe method
– hierarchist perspective (Goedkoop et al., 2008), which allowed for the quantification of potential
environmental impacts both at midpoint and endpoint level. In total, 18 midpoint indicators (e.g.
climate change, ozone depletion, human toxicity) and 3 endpoints indicators (i.e. damages to human
health, ecosystems and resource availability) were included in the textile LCA model.

Results show that significant contributions to the environmental impacts are due to the production and
to the use phases (see Figure 3). Product distribution and recycling/disposal activities at the end-of-life
phase are both of minor importance only. For some midpoint categories, the end-of-life phase even
results in credits which contribute to a net reduction of the impacts.

a
12
 Summary
‐20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Climate change ‐2 52 5 45
Ozone depletion 0 56 9 35
Photochemical oxidant formation ‐1 48 12 41
Particulate matter formation ‐2 48 7 47
Ionising radiation ‐3 42 1 60
Terrestrial  acidification ‐2 51 7 44
Human toxicity ‐1 16 1 84
Terrestrial  ecotoxicity 0 87 0 13
Freshwater ecotoxicity 0 23 0 77
Marine ecotoxicity ‐1 22 1 77
Metal depletion ‐1 33 1 67
Fossil depletion ‐2 54 5 42
Water depletion 0 40 0 60
Freshwater eutrophication 0 86 0 14
Marine eutrophication 81 3 14 2
Agricultural land occupation 0 96 04
Urban land occupation ‐2 46 4 51
Natural land transformation ‐1 67 9 25
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life

120
b
100
27
80 48 42
2 Use
60 5 Transport
5
40 Production
72
48 54
20 End‐of‐life

0 ‐1 ‐1 ‐2

‐20
Human health Ecosystem  Resource 
diversity availability

Figure 3: Impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27 according to the ReCiPe's midpoint (a) and
endpoint (b) indicators. The percentage contribution of the different life cycle stages is
reported

The production and processing phase is predominant for indicators such as eutrophication, agricultural
land occupation and natural land transformation which are mostly associated with the use of natural
fibres, which requires land and fertilisers during the cultivation step. Cotton is in particular the main
contributor among all the fibres due to its large share in the textiles market and to the nature of its
production.

The use phase includes washing, tumble drying and ironing. The detergent used for the washing
process and the energy used during the washing process itself have been found to be significantly
responsible for a high share of the impacts. The contribution of this stage is higher than 40 % in most
of the midpoint categories and it appears particularly significant for the toxicity indicators related to
human beings and water ecosystems. The textile end-products that contribute most significantly to
overall impacts during the use phase are those which require frequent washing and/or that are
consumed in important quantities (e.g. tops, bottoms, underwear, etc.). As a potential consequence of
the significant contribution to freshwater and marine toxicity, the use phase scores the highest
contribution also to the damage category 'ecosystem diversity'.

13
Summary

Energy and water are demanded all along the value chain of each textile products, which explains a
relative balance between production and use phases in categories related to water depletion and energy
consumption (e.g. fossil fuel depletion, climate change, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidant
formation, particulate matter formation). The damage to human health and to resources is also
allocated almost equally between production and use phases because of their dependence on the
mentioned midpoint indicators.

Interestingly, with respect to water depletion, the use phase is even more important than the
production and processing phase due to high water use for washing.

With respect to the distribution phase, air freight contributes to about 90 % of the impacts despite its
relatively small share (8 % of the transported textiles). In comparison with the other three life cycle
phases, the end-of-life phase instead shows some unique features. For some indicators, the apparent
contributions due to the end-of-life phase are quite small, also because impacts are offset by credits
due, for example, to energy and material recovery. Nevertheless, the environmental benefits associated
with the reuse of textile products are not directly visible in figure 3 because they were implicitly
included in the calculation of the impacts of the production stage.

 Assumptions and limitations

The baseline scenario has been modelled to reflect current state-of-the-art technologies. However, the
textile industry is one of the longest and most complicated industrial chains in the manufacturing
industry, bringing into play actors from industry (i.e. agricultural, chemical fibres, textile, apparel,
non-conventional), retail services and waste management. Thus, some limitations have been
encountered because of the unavailability of area-specific data. In order to cope with this issue, the
assumptions detailed below were necessary.
 Importation for EU consumption could not be distinguished from importation for transit.
Distribution impacts were therefore allocated to all end products consumed in the EU.
 Reused textiles in Europe were included in the model. A lifetime extension of 50 % was
considered, assuming they avoid the production of new items with a 1:1 ratio. Only the
impacts of exportation were considered for items that are reused abroad.
 Blended fibres are integral part of the model as the breakdown per fibre of each item was
considered. However, blended end products could not be distinguished from non-blended
items and it was therefore not possible to take into account some of their specific
characteristics (processes, care habits, disposal routes, etc.). A simplified case study was
carried out in order to understand the significance of considering these aspects in the
assessment of the environmental performance of a specific end product (i.e. a T-shirt).
 In the textile LCA model, textiles were considered to be recycled into rags. It is then
assumed that rags from textiles can replace paper towels and, therefore, that the impacts
associated with paper towel production are avoided. Only energy benefits were included in
the model. This is moreover only one of the many possible recycling routes for textiles.
 Concerning the production of fibres, some processes were extrapolated to different fibres
where no fibre-specific data were available.
 Processes are tightly linked to product quality, implicitly meaning that for a given fibre type,
end products will not necessarily follow the same processes. However, as this information
could not be obtained and included in the model, it is assumed that all fabrics undergo a
complete chain of processes which is likely to overestimate the impacts.
 Most of the life cycle phases take place in different locations around Europe and the world.
This implies technological and user behaviour variability and complex transportation
schemes of fibres, yarns, intermediary or end products that could not be always taken into
account. For what that concern the production stage, it was generally assumed that European
practices are representative, for most processes, of the average global production.

14
 Summary

IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS

A list of feasible improvement options was established to identify the improvement potential of the
textile life cycle in the EU-27. First, through literature research and consultation of experts, a long list
of 52 improvement options was determined. This list was shortened by applying the following criteria:
 relevance in the context of Integrated Product Policy (IPP)
 potential to improve processes that generate significant impacts
 coverage by existing legislation
 reliability and availability of data to quantify the environmental impact.

Based on these criteria, the following short list of 13 improvement options was determined:
 production and processing phase:
1. reducing agrochemical use
2. developing easy-to-grow crop cultivations by replacing cotton with hemp or flax
3. reducing consumption of sizing chemicals
4. replacing chemicals with enzymes
5. using alternative knitting techniques (e.g. fully-fashioned knitting or integral knitting)
6. using dye controllers and low liquor ratio dyeing machines
7. water recycling.
 distribution phase:
8. reducing air freight
 use phase:
9. reducing washing temperature
10. reducing tumble drying
11. optimising the load of appliances
12. improvement of washing/drying appliances efficiency
 end-of-life phase:
13. promotion of reuse and recycling
Scenarios were thus modelled in order to estimate the potential environmental benefits of these
options. A simplified analysis of the potential benefits associated with fibre blending was also
addressed through a case study referred to a specific end product (i.e. a T-shirt)

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

Table 2 presents the benefits of each of the 13 improvement options expressed in relation to the three
endpoint indicators included in the assessment method selected for this study (i.e. ReCiPe).

15
Summary

Table 2: Potential reduction of the environmental impacts due to the improvement options considered
in this study. Results are expressed with reference to the ReCiPe's endpoint indicators and in
comparison with the baseline scenario

Impact reduction (%) 

Stage  Option 
Human   Ecosystem 
Resource 
Health  diversity  availability

Reducing agrochemical use  0.7  3.7  0.4 

Replacing cotton with hemp or flax  0.3  5.8  0.7 

Reducing consumption of sizing chemicals  0.2  0.3  0.2 

Production   Replacing chemicals with enzymes  0.0  0.1  0.0 

Using alternative knitting techniques  1.2  2.0  4.0 

Using dye controllers and low liquor ratio dyeing machines  0.1  0.8  0.1 

Water recycling  0.6  11.3  0.6 

Distribution   Reducing air freight  3.9  1.9  4.5 

Reducing washing temperature  4.7  2.1  4.3 

Optimising the load of appliances  3.9  2.4  3.3 

Use  
Reducing tumble drying  1.6  0.7  1.5 

Improvement of washing/drying appliances efficiency  3.8  1.7  3.6 

End‐of‐life   Promotion of reuse and recycling  8.1  5.7  7.7 

NB: Different sub‐scenarios were examined for some improvement options. The results of the most optimistic sub‐scenarios 
are shown here 

Concerning the midpoint indicators, the most promising options for the reduction of the contribution
of each indicator is presented in

16
 Summary

table 3.

It is worthy noting that most of the best improvement options are consumer oriented, which
emphasises the key role in the model of the parameters related to the social sphere and the importance
of users behaviour on the overall environmental performance of textiles.

17
Summary

Table 3: Best improvement options to decrease the environmental impacts of the textile life cycle.
Results are expressed with reference to the ReCiPe's midpoint indicators and in comparison
with the baseline scenario

Most promising option to decrease the contribution to the  % reduction 
Midpoint Indicator
indicator reached
Climate change 8
Particulate matter formation 8
Ionising radiation 12
Increase of the collection of used clothing for reuse and recycling
Terrestrial acidification 8
Fossil depletion 8
Urban land occupation 7
Freshwater ecotoxicity 10
Marine ecotoxicity
Processing stepSource 9
Increase of the load capacity of washing and drying appliances
Metal depletion 7
Human toxicity 10
Freshwater eutrophication 31
Marine eutrophication Substitution of cotton by hemp  18
Agricultural land occupation 24
Water depletion 25
Recycling of effluent water by ion exchange technology
Natural land transformation 12
Ozone depletion Use of fully fashioned knitting 9
Photochemical oxidant formation Avoidance of air transportation 8
Terrestrial ecotoxicity Replacement of traditional cotton by GM cotton 45

In addition to considering single options individually, an estimation of the maximum benefits that
could be gained by combining all the compatible improvement options was assessed.

The maximum environmental benefits resulting from the combinations of the improvement options are
shown in figure 4. The overall impact of the textile life cycle could be decreased by 17 % to 51 %
depending on the midpoint category considered. The highest reduction was registered for terrestrial
ecotoxicity (51 %), followed by water depletion and marine eutrophication (35 % and 34 %), land
transformation (30 %) and climate change and fossil depletion (22 % and 21 %, respectively. A
reduction potential between 21 % and 27 % was instead registered for the endpoint indicators.

18
 Summary

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0
‐10
‐20
‐17

‐18

‐18
‐18
‐19

‐21

‐21
‐21

‐22
‐22

‐23

‐23
‐23

‐30
‐24

‐25

‐27
‐28

‐30
‐34
‐40

‐35
‐50
‐51

‐60
Alternative  scenario  combining  improvement  options

Figure 4: Maximum environmental benefits resulting from the combination of the improvement options

CONCLUSIONS

The environmental impacts of textile consumption and use in the EU-27 are both supply- and demand
-driven.
Supply factors include:
 agricultural practices
 production processes of the textile industry
 product design and functionalities of washing/drying/ironing appliances
 existence of sorting and recycling schemes.

Demand factors (which are mostly driven by social parameters) include:

 choice of products/fibres
 care practices (washing, drying, ironing)
 lifetime of product in a context of fast fashion
 disposal practices.

The production and the use phase of textiles contribute most to the environmental impacts compared
to the other life cycle phases. Efforts to reduce the total impact of the EU-27 textiles market should
thus be related to these stages.

The analysis of the possible improvement options suggest that a significant reduction of impacts can
potentially be achieved by targeting consumers. In particular, some of these options would require
small behavioural changes. Examples for such changes are: reducing washing temperature, washing at
full load, avoiding tumble-drying whenever possible, purchasing eco-friendly fibres, and donating

19
Summary

clothes being not used anymore. To achieve such changes it is necessary for consumers to be aware of
these issues, and it is imperative that infrastructural requirements can be met. Raising awareness and
dissemination therefore become important drivers of change. Promotion of ecolabels, and examples of
best practice cases, could therefore be used as tools for the overall improvement of environmental
performance.

Concerning with improvement options related to supply factors, it is more challenging to the accurate
assessment and comparison of the improvement potential of single actions is more challenging due to
a lack of experience with emerging techniques. Nevertheless, the analysis suggests that significant
improvements could be achieved by appropriately encouraging practices which can produce less
environment impacts, such as the recycling of effluent water.

Environmental policy intervention should aim at either the supply or demand factors considering the
overlap between the two areas. At the European level, the initiatives launched so far have mostly
focused on the production phase. One can for instance mention the directives and voluntary schemes
promoting cleaner production such as the REACH legislation or the EMAS voluntary instrument that
have a strong influence on the industry. Other notable actions include product-targeted measures such
as the Ecodesign Directive which is a key EU strategy. However, when it comes to the textile industry,
the field of action of European policies and legislation is limited by the fact that most of the
production takes place outside of the EU borders. One way to tackle this limitation is thus to further
develop the use of market and policy instruments which are more consumer-oriented, such as the
European Ecolabel scheme.

20
 Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Regardless of the life cycle phase, all products and services inevitably generate an effect on the
environment. By identifying critical life cycle aspects and taking constructive action, the European
Integrated Product Policy (IPP) aims to improve the environmental performance of products with life
cycle thinking as a central methodology. To accomplish this, the IPP must stimulate all the actors of
the value chain by influencing the design, manufacture, distribution, and consumption patterns.

The first action taken under IPP was to indentify which market products contribute the most to
environmental impacts in Europe. Completed in May 2006 by the European Commission’s Joint
Research Centre (JRC), the Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO, Tukker et al., 2006) was a
study conducted from a wide life cycle perspective. The resulting list of products was aggregated into
major groups, and priority has been given to those products consumed in Europe being considered to
produce higher environmental impacts.

EIPRO indentified food and drink, transport and private housing as the highest impacting areas.
Together they account for 70–80 % of the environmental impact of consumption. Of the remaining
areas, clothing dominated across all impact categories, with a contribution of 2–10 % (Tukker et al.,
2006). An alternative study (Labouze, 2006) reached similar conclusions and found textiles to be
contributing between 1 and 16 % to the environmental impacts of consumption in Europe. Although
not part of the top three areas, textiles still contribute to a significant proportion of the environmental
impacts in the EU-27.

While initially analysing the current life cycle impacts of products, the Environmental Improvement of
Products (IMPRO) also focuses on identifying technically and socioeconomically feasible means of
improving their environmental performance. IMPRO analyses of passenger cars (Nemry et al., 2008a),
residential buildings (Nemry et al., 2008b), and meat and dairy products (Weidema et al., 2008) have
already been completed.

As a priority group which makes a significant contribution to the environmental impacts in Europe,
textile products are the focus of this study.

In addition to providing an insight into the environmental impacts of textile consumption in Europe,
this project could be useful for the Ecolabel scheme for textiles by providing a quantitative assessment
of the improvement options of textile consumption. Indeed, this study does not only provide a baseline
scenario for the current impacts of the textiles market, but can also help to design further ecolabel
criteria by which the environmental performance of textiles can be judged.

The objectives of this study are to:

 identify the market share and consumption of textile products in EU-27;
 estimate and compare the environmental impacts of textile products consumed in EU-27,
taking into account the overall value chain (life cycle) of these products;
 identify and estimate the magnitude of the main environmental improvement options;
 assess the potential socioeconomic impacts of the identified options.

21
 Chapter 1

1 TEXTILE CONSUMPTION AND DISTRIBUTION IN EU-27

1.1 Introduction
Textile products have one of the longest and most complicated value chains within the manufacturing
industry. The textile industry involves actors from the agricultural, chemical fibres, textile, and apparel
industries, from the retail and services sectors, and from the waste management field. The industry is
fragmented and heterogeneous dominated by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which account for
more than 80 % of the market. According to the Reference Document on Best Available Techniques
(BAT) for the Textiles Industry (BREF, 2003), in the year 2000, the contribution of this sector to EU
manufacturing added value and to industrial employment was 3.8 % and 6.9 %, respectively.
According to the article Trends in EU Textile and Clothing Imports published in August 2009 (1),
European Union textile and clothing imports rose in value, reaching EUR 80.46 billion in 2008.
However, clothing imports alone were up by 2.4 % in value while textile imports declined by 5.7 %
and, most important for this study, the trends were similar in volume. Market figures on textiles and
clothing are reported in Table 4 for the years 2006 and 2007.

Table 4: Market figures for imported and exported textile and clothing

Import  Export 
In thousand EUR 
2006  2007  2006  2007 

Textiles  19 035 988  19 896 428  16 940 322  17 120 527 

Clothing  59 249 913  61 419 964  16 728 524  18 187 657 

Source: EURATEX, 2008a, 2008b  

On Table 4 it is possible to observe the repartition between imports and export in the European Union.
In geographical terms, Euratex explains that more than half of the total extra-EU textiles and clothing
imports in 2007 came from the top three suppliers: China (39 % of all imports in terms of value),
Turkey (14 %) and India (7.7 %) (statistics extracted from the European Commission website (2)). As
far as imports are concerned, it is clear that in the EU-27, the largest producers in the textile and
clothing industry are the five most populated countries, that is to say Italy, France, Germany, and
Spain and the UK. These five countries account for about three quarters of the EU-27 production of
textiles and clothing. It is worth mentioning that Italy is by far the most important exporter in extra-EU
textile trade with 33.7 % of the total EU textile exports.

Although domestic production prices of textiles have increased by 7.2 % between 2000 and 2008,
European textile and leather production has declined by 26 % since the year 2000 according to
Eurostat (2009) (see figure 5). During 1990–2003, industry employment decreased from 3 million to 2
million employees. As output prices increase, the demand for imported products is likely to increase,
as the costs of production and labour are often lower in foreign areas. Despite this, the sector
represents over 110 000 enterprises, or about 10 % of European industrial companies (UIT, 2009),
allowing Europe to remain the world’s largest exporter of textiles and the second largest exporter of
clothing.

(1) http://www.bharatbook.com/detail.asp?id=8207&rt=Trends-in-EU-Textile-and-Clothing-Imports.html
(2) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/textiles/external-dimension/trade-issues/index_en.htm

23
Chapter 1

2003                     2004                    2005                     2006                    2007                     2008 

Source: Eurostat, 2009 
NB: year 2000 = 100 
Figure 5: Index of production, trend cycle for the EU-27

Each step of the textiles life cycle is dependent on several factors which lend themselves to the
complexity of the industry. Patterns of production and consumption can vary greatly, with several
intermediary flows, both at the manufacturing and distribution levels. In the face of ever-changing
consumer demands, the textiles industry is constantly under pressure to evolve, creating textiles with
varying designs and functions. More so than many other product types, the characteristics of a textile
product can be influenced by not only their practical purpose, but also the tastes of those who purchase
them. It is because of both of these factors that such a wide variety of different textile products is
available. Furthermore, these factors can have an influence on the colour, size, weight, fibre type and
texture of a specific product type. Because of this diversity of characteristics, it is misleading to
analyse the impacts of one product and to attribute the results to several other types of products. It is
not reasonable to assume, for example, that the life cycle impacts of a polyester shirt would be the
same as those of a linen bed sheet.

The processes for textile manufacturing can be more or less intensive, depending on the added value
of the final product. But even the less intensive activity requires large amounts of water, chemicals and
energy. Although there are a variety of studies (ERM ,2002a; Maiorino et al., 2003; Laursen et al.,
2007) which focus on specific individual products, the intention here is to determine the impacts of all
end product-types in the EU-27. In order to do this, it was necessary to determine the market share of
all textile products in Europe, categorise products by broad types, and further break down each type by
their most important characteristics in terms of life cycle effect, a major criterion being the cloth’s
fibre type.

The textile and clothing industry comprises ‘natural’ fibres (including cotton, wool, silk, flax, jute) and
synthetic fibres (including fibres coming from the transformation of polymers and inorganic
materials). Regarding the order of magnitude of the repartition between natural fibres and synthetic
fibres, EURATEX stipulates that in 2007, EUR 1.7 billion of natural fibres were imported against
EUR 0.9 billion of synthetic fibres. In addition, EUR 0.6 billion were collected by the export of
natural fibres against EUR 0.8 billion for synthetic fibres. It can be assumed that Europe is an importer
of natural fibres whereas imports and export of synthetic fibres are globally the same. This trend is not
new; one can observe this in Statistics in focus by EUROSTAT (1): the European Union exported
textile products worth EUR 38 billion in 2005. At the same time, imports amounted to roughly double
that value (EUR 77 billion). The trade deficit of the European Union thus amounted to EUR 39.5
billion. The CIRFS (The International Rayon and Synthetic Fibres Committee) (2) gives us more
information on polyester fibres: worldwide, over 30 million tonnes of polyester fibre are produced and
consumed, furthermore the world market for polyester fibre is growing at around 5 % per year. In the

(1) Eurostat, EU-25 trade in textiles 2005, Issue 63/2007, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-

063/EN/KS-SF-07-063-EN.PDF
(2) CIRFS, Key statistics, http://www.cirfs.org/KeyStatistics.aspx

24
 Chapter 1

European Union, the imports of yarn are large and rising (its share has increased from 45 % to 53 % in
2007).

As far as inside trade is concerned, the textiles industry provides 9.5 % of jobs in European Union, but
only 5 % of value added. This shows that the productivity per person is very low in this sector. Once
again, Italy contributes to one third of the total amount of value added which was of EUR 25.2 billion
in 2001. Apart from Italy, six other Member States have trade surpluses, even if none of these six are
major actors in the textile business. Large deficits prevail, especially those of Germany and the United
Kingdom, accounting for 28 % and 30 % of the total EU trade deficit respectively.

1.2 Scope and methodology

Although clothing is considered an important group of textile products, household, interior and
technical textiles are also other significant functions. The breakdown of the European textile market
(see figure 6), shows that clothing products make up the most prominent share, followed by household
and technical textiles in terms of mass. Due the vast diversity and highly specific nature of some of
these products, technical textiles have been omitted from the scope of the study. One of the reasons for
this is that technical textile products are very heterogeneous. It would be difficult to aggregate some
individual products into categories given the different types of industrial settings they may be used in.
Not enough exhaustive market and production data are available for these different products to analyse
them in the context of the EU-27 market. Moreover, because the settings they are used in can differ so
much, it would be difficult to determine use phase patterns, and thus impossible to quantify the overall
impacts of this phase. As they can also be combined with other product types, it would be difficult to
determine which share of the market data relates only to the textile parts of these products. The study
therefore focuses on the ‘Clothing’ and ‘Household’ textiles share. Note that the ‘Household’ textiles
group includes both household and interior textiles. The classification and market research results will
be presented below for each of these two major groups.

Others
7

Technical
18
Clothing
45

Interior
10

Household
20
Source: European Commission, 2003 
Figure 6: Breakdown of the European textile market

First, market data was gathered to determine the apparent consumption of textile products in Europe.
The Europroms (Europroms 2010) database was used as the main data source, focusing on clothing

25
Chapter 1

and household sectors. Data from 2007 were used for the purpose of this project. Apparent
consumption in the EU-27 was calculated as production plus net imports:

Apparent consumption = Production + Import ‐ Export 

In accordance with the Europroms classification, each end product-type (e.g. shirts, blouses, sweaters)
has been further broken down into two main fabric types: 1) knitted and crocheted or 2) woven. Data
on the market breakdown of products by fibre type were collected. The analysis was based on main
fibre types showing high market shares. Although natural fibres of vegetable origin are represented by
cotton and flax, many others exist such as hemp, jute, ramie, and bamboo. Of these additional fibres
listed, only hemp has been included in later steps of the analysis as an improvement option but this
fibre is not considered in the baseline scenario. Other fibres have also been included in the context of
their improvement potential, such as polycotton (1) blends (see Section 4.7.1). The full list of fibres
and materials considered in the model is listed below:
 cotton
 polyester
 wool
 flax
 viscose
 silk
 polyamide
 acrylic
 hemp
 polyurethane
 polypropylene
 PVC
 feathers.

Product-specific breakdown percentages were determined for each of the end product categories.
Where data were not available, average figures were used. The full breakdown for each end product
type is included in Annex 1.

Since the Europroms database gives production figures of some end products in amounts of units or
pairs, it was necessary for those products to estimate the corresponding weight. A literature review
was thus carried out and completed by Ensait in order to determine a range of weight for each type of
products and to estimate the maximum and minimum impacts associated (see Annex 1). In total, 101
clothing product categories and 27 household product categories are included in the Europroms
database, the full list of which can be seen in Annex 1. The available market data was extracted for
each category. Each of these products falls under broader product categories (10 for clothing and 8 for
household textiles), as listed in table 5. As some end product types for clothing textiles were found to
be very similar, it was necessary to aggregate them into representative end product categories. For
example, it was assumed that there is little difference between ‘women's or girls' blouses, shirts and
shirt-blouses’, and ‘men's or boys' shirts and under-shirts’. Therefore the market data for these
products were combined into a new end product category. In total, clothing textiles were grouped into
63 different end product categories. As each of the household textile products listed were quite distinct
from one another, 27 end products were identified (i.e. each its own category). The full classification
for clothing and household textiles is available in Annex 1.

(1) Polycotton is a term used for cotton and polyester fibre blends

26
 Chapter 1

Table 5: List of broad textile product categories

Clothing  Household 
   

Tops  Floor coverings 
Underwear, nightwear and hosiery  Bed linens 
Bottoms  Curtains, blinds, etc 
Jackets  Articles of bedding 
Dresses  Kitchen and toilet linens 
Suits and ensembles  Blankets and travelling rugs 
Gloves  Floor cloths, dishcloths, dusters, etc. 
Sportswear  Table linens 
Swimwear 
Scarves, shawls, ties, etc. 
 

Some products are not considered within the scope of this study. Shoes and bags have been for
example excluded because market data for this category comprise products made from leather and
rubber (especially in the case of shoes). Also other leather products are not included as they do not fall
within the scope of this study.

A major challenge in this project was the lack of detailed market information. This made difficult to
tune the level of disaggregation of the textile model and to allow a precise identification of individual
products, necessary in order to build the model with realistic data on production and use patterns and,
more importantly, to cope with the inherent uncertainty of environmental data and the potential lack of
detailed market information. A simplified model of the actual textiles market was thus considered
following a bottom-up approach. The following sections provide an outline of the steps taken to
determine the EU-27 textiles market consumption data, as well as an indication of which products and
fibre types may play a more significant role.

1.3 Consumption breakdown results

The calculations in this study give an average apparent consumption of 9 547 thousand tonnes of
textile products in the EU-27 of which 6 754 are clothing textiles and 2 793 are household textiles.
Total consumption corresponds to an average of 19.1 kg per citizen and year. This is slightly higher
than values found in the literature for the year 2003, corresponding to 14.5–17.2 kg per citizen and
year (Arias, 2003). The total amounts of consumption for clothing and household textile in relation to
different product types are presented in figure 7. The figure clearly indicates that, overall, clothing
products are consumed at much higher quantities than household textile products.

27
Chapter 1

3000
Consumption amounts (in thousands of tonnes)
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Dresses

Gloves

Floor coverings
Jackets
Underwear, nightwear and hosiery

Curtains, blinds, etc 
Bed linen

Articles of bedding
Sportwear
Tops

Table linen
Bottoms

Floor cloths, dish cloths, dusters, etc
Suits and Ensembles

Blankets and traveling rugs
Linen (Kitchen and toilet)
Scarves, shawls,  ties, etc
Swimwear

Clothing Household

Figure 7: Consumption of different categories of clothing and household textile products in the EU-27
(2007)

The percentage breakdown of consumption for clothing products is shown in Ttable 6. The broad
category of "Tops" was found to be consumed in the greatest amounts, comprising 36.7 % of clothing
product consumption. Within this category, T-shirts and vests had the highest consumption amounts
(at 803 857 tonnes) followed by jerseys, jumpers and pullovers of synthetic fibres (at 712 756 tonnes).
Other broad categories found to be consumed in high amounts include: "Underwear, nightwear and
hosiery" and "Bottoms" (e.g. trousers, shorts, etc.), at 24.2 % and 20.4 % of the total consumption,
respectively.

28
 Chapter 1

Table 6: Percentage breakdown of consumption for clothing textile products

Product category  Share of consumption (%) 

Tops  36.7 

Underwear, nightwear and hosiery  24.2 

Bottoms  20.4 

Jackets  7.7 

Dresses  5.3 

Suits and ensembles  2.8 

Gloves  1.0 

Sportswear  0.9 

Swimwear  0.6 

Scarves, shawls, ties, etc.  0.4 

The breakdown of the consumption of household textile products is presented in table 7. Floor
coverings make up the highest share of household textile products consumed, mainly due to the high
consumption of tufted carpets (771 057 tonnes).

Table 7: Percentage breakdown of consumption for household textile products

Product category  Share of consumption (%) 

Floor coverings  38.0 

Bed linens  15.6 

Curtains, blinds, etc.   13.4 

Articles of bedding  12.3 

Kitchen and toilet linens  9.4 

Blankets and travelling rugs  5.2 

Floor cloths, dishcloths, dusters, etc.  3.8 

Table linens  2.4 

Figure 8 shows the amount of consumption by materials for both clothing and household textiles. The
figure shows that for both clothing and household products, cotton is the most purchased fibre in terms
of quantities and polyester is the second most purchased. Following these, the third most common
fibre types are acrylic for clothing products (present in comparatively small amounts in household
products) and polyamide for household textiles.

29
Chapter 1

3500

Consumption (in thousands of tonnes)  3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Clothing Household

Figure 8: Consumption by materials for clothing and household textiles

Compared to clothing products, the share of synthetic fibres (e.g. polyamide and polypropylene) for
household textiles is higher (see figure 9). However, it is also worth noting that the total weight of
production for clothing textiles appears to be more than twice that of household textiles, at 6.8 million
tonnes compared to 2.8 million tonnes.

100
PVC
90
Polypropylene
80
Polyurethane/Polypropylene
MAN‐MADE
SYNTHETIC

70 Polyamide
60 Acrylic

50
Polyester
%
Viscose
40
Feather
30
Flax
NATURAL
NATURAL

20 Silk
10 Wool or other animal hair
0 Cotton
Clothing Household

Figure 9: Percentage breakdown of consumption by material for clothing and household textiles

30
 Chapter 1

1.4 Data uncertainties, gaps and limitations

The market analysis of this study is based on the Europroms database which combines data on the
production of manufactured products (Prodcom database) and data on external trade (Comext
database). As production and trade data come from different sources (surveys for production, and
custom clearance for trade), data representativeness may differ as the coverage of production statistics
is not necessarily in line with that of trade statistics. Matching this information can therefore cause
some representativeness problems that are difficult to solve.

The level of accuracy of the Europroms database is also uncertain. When production, import and
export amounts for individual EU-27 Member States are added together, for most categories the totals
do not appear to match those already aggregated for the EU-27. Experts at Euratex confirmed that
confidential or missing data are common in textile statistics. The main problem is that it is difficult to
determine whether data included in the Europroms (or Euratex) database were derived from the
production of all textiles manufacturers.

Finally, some product categories presented in Europroms are very generic, meaning that detailed
information on fibres or processes used for manufacturing end products can be difficult to assess and
that the composition of production can in some cases differ from that of trade. Experts from Ensait
were consulted to establish a few different typologies representing the most common technologies in
use.

The above factors may have some influence on the final figures although it is assumed that the figures
are as close as possible to the present condition of the textiles market.

1.5 Key points of the market analysis

The analysis of the textile market revealed that, in terms of mass, the three product categories "Tops",
"Bottoms" and "Underwear" are the most important items amounting to more than 78 % of the
clothing market consumption. For household textiles, floor coverings clearly dominate the market
(38 % of mass share of consumption). In terms of mass, the volume of clothing is almost twice as that
of household textiles. The calculation in this study give an average apparent consumption of 9 547 000
of tonnes of textile products in the EU-27 of which 6 754 000 are clothing textiles and 2 793 000 are
household textiles. Total consumption corresponds to an average of 19.1 kg per citizen and year. This
is slightly higher than the values given in Arias (2003), where the total consumption was estimated
between 14.5 and 17.2 kg per citizen per year.

When observing different fibre types, the following conclusions can be drawn: for clothing textiles,
the consumption is dominated by cotton which accounts for more than 43 % of all fibres, in terms of
mass, followed by polyester (16 %). The ratio between natural and synthetic fibre is 54/46.

For household textiles, cotton and polyester are the most common fibres accounting for approximately
28 % each, in terms of mass of consumption, followed by polyamide (23 %). Compared with clothes,
polyurethane and polypropylene consumption in terms of mass is much higher and it accounts for
nearly 10 %. The ratio between natural and synthetic fibre is 30:70.

31
 Chapter 2

2 THE TEXTILE LCA MODEL: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

In order to quantify the improvement potential of the textiles industry, it was necessary to calculate the
environmental impact of the sector. This step involved the quantification of the input of resources and
of the environmental outputs occurring in each of the life cycle stages of the textile products (i.e.
production, distribution, use and end-of-life). The environmental impacts were then assessed based on
a number of environmental indicators. The result of this assessment provided the baseline scenario for
the textiles industry, considering both clothing and household textiles. The methods used to build the
baseline scenario are presented in the sections to follow.

2.1 Presentation of the textile LCA model

2.1.1.1 Overview

The textile LCA model takes into account both first- and second-hand textiles. Second-hand textiles
refer to products that are reused after they reach the end-of life phase. All environmental impacts
associated with the complete life cycle of textile consumed in one year (2008 in the baseline scenario)
are taken into account.

The system boundaries considered in the textile LCA model are shown in figure 10.

Production and processing
of end‐products

Distribution

Use  Use 
of first‐hand textiles of second‐hand textiles

Reuse
Recycling
Disposal
(Incineration, landfill)

Figure 10: System boundaries of the textile LCA model

The life cycle of textile products can essentially be split into four main stages:

Production and processing – This phase begins with the production or extraction of raw
materials (e.g. cultivation of fibre-producing crops), leading to the processing of the fibre,
followed by the confection of yarn and fabric, and finally the finishing, cutting and sewing steps
needed to make a complete end product. Given the very different types of materials used to
package products, and the varying practices carried out by individual companies along the
supply chain, the life cycle of packaging has not been included in the model. This stage is
described in more detail in Section 2.2.1

33
Chapter 2

Distribution – This phase takes into consideration the importation and distribution of textile
end products, based on the construction of a distribution scenario for textiles in the EU-27. Only
the transportation of final end products has been included in the model, while the import/export
of intermediate components has not been considered (e.g. a fibre produced in one country which
is then exported to another for further processing). This phase is described in detail in Section
2.2.2
Use – This phase takes into account consumer behaviour and the use patterns of textile end
products. This step incorporates the impacts of washing, tumble drying and ironing.
Assumptions and models related to this stage are presented in Section 2.2.3
End-of-life – The end-of-life phase includes the reuse, recycling and final disposal (i.e.
incineration or landfilling) of textile products. This phase is presented in Section 2.2.4. The
reuse of old items was taken into account for the calculation of the real consumption of textiles
(a 50% lifetime extension is given to collected textiles which are reused), so that a discount was
implicitly assigned to the impacts from the production stage.

2.1.1.2 Integration of reused items in the textile LCA model

The following section explains how the apparent consumption, corresponding to the consumption of
first-hand textiles and calculated through the Europroms database, was incorporated into the textile
LCA model and how reused textiles were also taken into account to estimate the real textile
consumption, as some of the demand in the EU is covered by second-hand textiles.
Real consumption of textiles in a year n (Dn) can be calculated as the sum of consumption of new
textiles in the same year (dn) and consumption of second-hand textiles (dn-1 × rn-1) from the year
before.

If dn is the apparent consumption of new textiles calculated through the Europroms database for a
given year n and rn-1 is the textile reuse rate in the EU in the previous year, the real consumption Dn in
the year n is given by dn + (dn-1 × rn-1).

A first assumption considered in the model is that the demand of textiles in year n is equal to the
apparent offer in the same year. Moreover, it was also considered that consumption data and textile
reuse rate do not change significantly from one year to another (Textile Recycling Association, 2005),
After simplification of the market model based on this assumption, it follows that the real consumption
Dn is given by dn/(1-rn-1).

34
 Chapter 2

table 8 provides the underlying calculations for first- and second-hand flows that have been used in the
model.

35
Chapter 2

Table 8: Calculation of the environmental impacts of first- and second-hand products in the textile
LCA model

Total  
Life cycle phase  First‐hand textiles  Second‐handtextiles  (first‐hand + second‐
hand) 
Production and 
Dn × (1‐rn) × P    Dn × (1‐rn) × P 
processing 

Distribution  Dn × (1‐rn) × T    Dn × (1‐rn) × T 

Dn × (1‐rn) × U1+ rn × Dn × 
Use  Dn × (1‐rn) × U1  Dn × rn × U2 
U2 

End‐of‐life  Dn × (1‐rn) × W  Dn × rn × W  Dn × W 

Parameters related to the material flow  Impacts per unit of mass (e.g. kg CO2/kg) 
Dn: real consumption at year n (Mt)  P: impact of production 
rn: reuse rate at year n  T: impact of distribution  
  U1: impact of using first‐hand textile 
  U2: impact of using second‐hand textiles 
  W: impact of end‐of‐life 

2.1.1.3 Data sources

Raw data for material and energy requests, process losses and emissions were derived from the
literature specialised in the field of textiles and LCA or from technical studies carried out by BIO
Intelligence Service. The list of publications consulted is presented in the references section (see
Section Error! Reference source not found.). Metadata were then coupled with the environmental
information contained in the Ecoinvent 2.0 database (Ecoinvent Centre, 2007). Ecoinvent is one of the
most exhaustive Life Cycle Inventory databases and it allowed the high number of materials,
chemicals and processes that enter the textile life cycle to be considered in a consistent and reliable
way. Further sources of input/output data included Wisard 4.2 (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007), for
end-of-life stage, and PlasticsEurope, for what concerns plastic compounds. Where data were not
readily found in the database, other sources outlined in the report were used (in particular for the
production of individual fibre types). Where no suitable data was available, research institutes and
universities were contacted. Section 2.2 outlines how the model has been organised, including its
limitations and the major assumptions made throughout its construction.

2.2 Model description

2.2.1 Production and processing phase

The manufacturing phase of textile products can essentially be separated into two main consecutive
steps. A finished sheet of fabric must first be made (fabric production) which is used to make the final
end product in the second main step (product confection), as outlined in Figure 11). Fabric production
is presented in detail in Section 2.2.1.1. This step differs between the fibre types. In Section 2.2.1.2,
the product confection is shown.

36
 Chapter 2

Figure 11: Schematic overview of textile product manufacture

Losses have been taken into account along the textile manufacturing chain. Furthermore, their own
end-of-life phase has been modelled within the textile production phase. It has been assumed that
50 % of the lost fabric material is reused within the chain, the rest of the losses (50 %) are disposed of
and their end-of-life treatment mix is the same as that of textiles which are presented below in Section
2.2.4 namely:
 29.6 % to incineration with energy recovery
 0.8 % to incineration without energy recovery
 69.6 % to landfill.

For the fabric production, processing and confection phases, clothes and household textiles made from
fibres were modelled in a similar way since the life cycle steps are assumed to be the same. However,
carpets had to be treated differently, as it will be shown in the following.

2.2.1.1 Fabric production

Several processes must be undertaken in order to create a finished sheet of fabric. Four stages can be
detected:
 fibre production and processing
 yarn formation
 fabric formation
 finishing.

A life cycle inventory (LCI) was built for each of the main fibre types detected during the market
analysis (see Section 1) including: cotton, wool, polyester, polyamide, acrylic, silk, viscose, flax, and
polypropylene. The following sections will outline the inventory data considered for each fibre.

 Cotton
Cotton is one of the most common fibres present in the textiles industry. This is especially true for
clothing products, where cotton fibres take up the largest share. Figure 12 presents the four main steps
in the production of cotton fabric: cotton fibre production, yarn formation, fabric formation and
finishing. Although it is not presented in this figure, the cultivation of cotton was also included in the

37
Chapter 2

model. The LCI for the production of cotton fibres included fertiliser and pesticide use, transportation,
as well as the separation of cotton fibres for the further steps. Information about cotton production
(e.g. the amount of fertilisers and pesticides required) were derived from a series of literature sources
as well as from sector experts. Environmental inputs and outputs were then quantified from the
Ecoinvent database (Nemecek et al., 2007).

The LCI of the cotton cultivation was disaggregated into seven processes: use of cultivating
machinery; seed growing; production and provision of pesticides and fertilisers; irrigation; and tractor-
use emissions. This disaggregation allowed for an easier modification of the model parameters,
performed during the analysis of the improvement options (e.g. modelling of organic or genetically
modified (GM) cotton).

Figure 12: Main life cycle steps in cotton fabric production

Concerning yarn formation, fabric formation and finishing, cotton-specific LCI data could be found.
However, certain steps, especially those concerning the finishing of fibres (e.g. desizing, singeing, and
kier boiling), have been based on general figures for fabric production. References for the data used
are shown in table 9.

38
 Chapter 2

Table 9: Data sources used to model the production and processing of cotton fabric

Processing step  Source 

Cultivation  BIO (2008), Kalliala et al. (1999)

Scouring  TheSmartTime (2008)  

Bleaching  European Commission (2003), BTTG (1999b)  

Lubrication/Sizing  European Commission (2003) 

Spinning  BIO (2005), Laursen et al. (2007)

Desizing  BTTG (1999b), TheSmartTime (2008) 

Weaving  BTTG (1999a)  

Knitting  BTTG (1999a), BIO (2005)  

Singeing  BTTG (1999b)  

Kier boiling  BTTG (1999b)  

Dyeing  BIO (2005), European Commission (2003) 

Cotton is by far the most studied fibre type and the literature provide for accurate and exhaustive LCIs.
Nevertheless, the overall results of the analysis may be affected to some extent by the lack of
information available for other vegetable fibres, since input/output data are in this case scarcer and
more uncertain.

 Wool
The production of fibres has been based on figures from previous studies. The main steps in wool
fabric production are shown in figure 13. Wool cultivation relies on the use of farm equipment,
production, provision and application of agrochemicals (e.g. sheep dip), animal feed production and
water. The majority of the data have been derived from a recent study based on the production of
Merino sheep’s wool (Barber et al., 2006) and a recent study on the impacts of cotton, wool and
acrylic fabric production (BIO, 2005). Although the former focuses on a specific type of wool, it has
been assumed here that the production steps are similar. After wool production, the washing and
preparing of the wool for yarn formation appeared to be an important step, in which large quantities of
water and energy are used. It is also worth noting that there is a large loss of material during this
phase, on average estimated being around 45 % by weight. This loss can be broken down as follows
(Barber et al., 2006):
‐ 34 %, dirt
‐ 31 %, grease
‐ 24 %, water
‐ 11%, suint.

The majority of grease and suint are made up of a by-product of wool known as lanolin, which is often
used in other applications. Dirt is also sold as a by-product of wool, for fertiliser production. As
adequate equivalents of these materials could not be found in the Ecoinvent database, it has been
assumed that this material is disposed of. Wool carbonisation is an optional step used to remove
vegetable matter from the wool. It is mainly used to prepare wools that have high vegetable matter
content and are not destined for worsted processing (OECD, 2004). High vegetable matter content was
here assumed for the wool and carbonisation has thus been included. Another notable difference
between wool and other fibres is the presence of an anti-felt treatment step. Similarly to cotton, the
majority of the data gathered for wool fabric production relied on little extrapolation of information
from different processes, with the exception of the weaving and knitting processes.

39
Chapter 2

Table 10: Data sources used to model the production and processing of wool fabric

Processing step  Source 

Cultivation  Barber et al. (2006)
Scouring  Barber et al. (2006), BIO (2005), Dahllöf (2004) 
Top making  Barber et al. (2006)
Carbonisation  BIO (2005), European Commission (2003) 
Bleaching  Lacasse (2004), BIO (2005) 
Lubrication/Sizing  European Commission (2003) 
Spinning  BIO (2005), BTTG (1999b) 
Desizing  Lacasse (2004) 
Weaving  BTTG (1999b)  
Knitting  BTTG (1999b) 
Anti‐felting treatment  BIO (2005) 
Printing pretreatment  European Commission (2003) 
Softening  BIO (2005) 
Dyeing  BIO (2005) 

Figure 13: Main life cycle steps in wool fabric production

40
 Chapter 2

 Polyester
Polyester is another fibre of significant importance in the textiles industry. For the production of
fibres, the LCI for polyester fibre has been based on that of amorphous polyester, obtained from the
Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (1). This database provides the most up to date figures
for the environmental impacts of the production of plastics. The subsequent steps are assumed to be
the same as for cotton fabric production. Sizing has been considered also for synthetic fibres although
it is more commonly used in natural fibres processing. However, the sizing chemicals used for either
type of fibre can differ. The sizing of warp and weft polyester fibres for weaving has been based on
the use of ethylene glycol. Figure 14 shows the main steps in polyester fabric production. The list of
references for polyester production and processing can be found in table 11.

Figure 14: Main life cycle steps in polyester fabric production

Table 11: Data sources used to model the production and processing of polyester fabric

Processing step  Source 

Fibre production  European Commission (2007a) 
Lubrication/Sizing  European Commission (2003) 
Spinning  BTTG (1999a), European Commission (2003)
Desizing  BTTG (1999b), Labouze (2008)
Weaving  Blackburn (2004), BTTG (1999a) , European Commission (2003) 
Knitting  BTTG (1999b), European Commission (2003), BIO (2005) 
Singeing  BTTG (1999b) 
Kier boiling  BTTG (1999b) 
Bleaching  BTTG (1999b) 
Dyeing  Lacasse (2004), European Commission (2003) 

(1) PlasticsEurope database: http://www.plasticseurope.org

41
Chapter 2

 Polyamide 6 and 6,6

The main steps in polyamide fabric production are similar to those of cotton and polyester and they are
presented in figure 15. As with polyester, the majority of data used were unique to this type of fibre
(with the exception of sizing and fabric formation steps). A list of references consulted for raw data is
listed in table 12. Inventory data related to the production of this fibre refers to both polyamide 6 and
6,6. The raw material production data for either fibre have been obtained from the PlasticsEurope
database, like in the case of polyester. For the other steps, the same LCI data have been used for both
fibres. For steps in which data specific to polyamide could not be found (i.e. sizing and fabric
formation), data have been extrapolated from the polyester fabric production inventory.

Figure 15: Main life cycle steps in polyamide fabric production

Table 12: Data sources used to model the production and processing of polyamide fabric

Processing step  Source 

Fibre production  BIO (2008), European Commission (2007a) 

Lubrication/Sizing  European Commission (2003) 

Spinning  Laursen et al. (2007), European Commission (2007a)

Desizing  BTTG (1999b) , Labouze (2008) 

Weaving  Blackburn (2004), BTTG (1999a), European Commission (2003) 

Knitting  BTTG (1999b), European Commission (2003), BIO (2005) 

Singeing  BTTG (1999b)  

Kier boiling  BTTG (1999b) 

Bleaching  Lacasse (2004) 

Dyeing  European Commission (2003) 

42
 Chapter 2

 Acrylic
Despite its significant presence in the textiles market (as evidenced by figure 9), there is a scarcity of
data related to this fibre type (Laursen et al., 2007). LCI data specific to acrylic have been found only
for the fibre production and dyeing phases. For the other life cycle steps, LCI data were mainly
extrapolated from polyester fabric production. The raw data sources for each processing step are listed
in table 13. LCI data related to the production of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (BIO, 2005) were
considered for the production of acrylic fibres. Consultation with experts confirmed that the
extrapolation does not result in poor reliability of the results. Figure 14 depicts the main steps in
acrylic fabric production.

Table 13: Data sources used to model the production and processing of acrylic fabric

Processing step  Source 

Fibre production  BIO (2005) 

Lubrication/Sizing  European Commission (2003) 

Spinning  European Commission (2003), BIO (2005)

Desizing  BTTG (1999b), Labouze (2008) 

Weaving  Blackburn (2004), BTTG (1999a), European Commission (2003) 

Knitting  BTTG (1999b), European Commission (2003), BIO (2005) 

Singeing  BTTG (1999b) 

Kier boiling  BTTG (1999b) 

Bleaching  BTTG (1999b) 

Dyeing  BIO (2005) 

Figure 16: Main life cycle steps in acrylic fabric production

43
Chapter 2

 Silk
Although it only accounts for a small share of the textiles market (see Figure 9), silk fabric is used
extensively in certain types of products, such as scarves, ties and underwear. Data on silk fabric
production could be found mainly for the later steps of fabric production (i.e. scouring, dyeing and
printing). No data on silk fibre production could be found. Thus, this step was omitted from the LCI.
Consultation with experts revealed that the inputs related to the spinning of silk yarn are also quite
particular to this fibre type. This step, therefore, was also excluded from the inventory. Both the
dyeing and printing of fabric has been considered here, at an assumed 50:50 ratio. A list of references
for silk fabric production is presented in table 14; the main production steps for this fibre are instead
presented in Figure 17.

Table 14: Data sources used to model the production and processing of silk fabric

Processing step  Source 

Scouring  Sára et al. (2) (2003)
Lubrication/Sizing  European Commission (2003) 
Desizing  BTTG (1999b), Labouze (2008) 
Weaving  Blackburn (2004), BTTG (1999a), European Commission (2003) 
Softening  Sára et al. (2) (2003)
Colours preparation  Sára et al. (2) (2003)
Bleaching  BTTG (1999b)  
Washing/Soaping  Sára et al. (2004), Sára et al. (2) (2003)
Dyeing  Sára et al. (2003), Sára et al. (2) (2003)
Printing  Sára et al. (2004)

Figure 17: Main life cycle steps in silk fabric production

44
 Chapter 2

 Viscose
As with silk, much of the data available for viscose fabric production focus on finishing steps,
although scouring and fibre production steps are also included in some detail. Furthermore, both the
printing and dyeing of viscose fabric were considered to be applied with a 50:50 ratio. For the
remaining steps, data were extrapolated from polyester fabric production. Figure 18 shows the main
production and processing steps considered in the inventory of viscose fabric production. A full list of
raw data references is presented in Table 15.

Figure 18: Main life cycle steps in viscose fabric production

Table 15: Data sources used to model the production and processing of viscose fabric

Processing step  Source 

Fibre production  PlasticsEurope database 
Scouring  Sára et al. (1) (2003)
Lubrication/Sizing  European Commission (2003) 
Spinning  European Commission (2003), BIO (2005)
Desizing  BTTG (1999b), Labouze (2008) 
Weaving  Blackburn (2004), BTTG (1999a), European Commission (2003) 
Knitting  BTTG (1999b), European Commission (2003), BIO (2005) 
Softening  Sára et al. (1) (2003)
Colours preparation  Sára et al. (1) (2003), Maiorino et al. (2003)
Bleaching  Maiorino et al. (2003)
Washing/Soaping  Sára et al. (1) (2003), Maiorino et al. (2003)
Dyeing  Sára et al. (1) (2003)
Printing  Maiorino et al. (2003)

45
Chapter 2

 Flax
The majority of the data for flax fabric production have been derived from BIO (2007a). A full list of
references is presented in table 16. Inputs for the production of flax crop and fibres were also obtained
from this study, which included energy and irrigation, as well as agrochemical use (i.e. pesticides and
fertilisers). The dyeing of flax has not been included in the model as data on this step were
unavailable. The main steps considered for flax fabric production are shown below in figure 19.

Figure 19: Main life cycle steps in flax fabric production

Table 16: Data sources used to model the production and processing of flax fabric

Processing step  Source 

Fibre production   BIO (2007a) 

Stripping   BIO (2007a) 

Combing   BIO (2007a) 

Bleaching  European Commission (2003) 

Lubrication/Sizing   BIO (2007a) 

Spinning   BIO (2007a), BTTG (1999a)  

Desizing   BIO (2007a) 

Weaving   BIO (2007a), BTTG (1999a)  

Singeing  Kazakevičiūtė et al. (2004)

Kier boiling  European Commission (2003) 

Rinsing   BIO (2007a) 

46
 Chapter 2

 Polypropylene
As there is a scarcity of data related to this fibre type, data were only indentified for the production of
polypropylene raw materials. As a consequence, only raw material production (polypropylene
granulates) is considered in the fibre production and processing stage. Apart from raw material
production, LCI data were mainly extrapolated from polyester fabric production. The references
consulted for the raw data gathering are listed in Table 17; the main steps of polypropylene production
are instead presented in Figure 20 Reference source not found..

Table 17: Data sources used to model the production and processing of polypropylene fabric

Processing step  Source 

Fibre production  PlasticsEurope database 

Lubrication/Sizing  European Commission (2003) 

Spinning  BTTG (1999a), European Commission (2003)

Desizing  BTTG (1999b), Labouze (2008)

Weaving  Blackburn (2004), BTTG (1999a), European Commission (2003) 

Knitting  BTTG (1999b), European Commission (2003), BIO (2005) 

Singeing  BTTG (1999b) 

Kier boiling  BTTG (1999b) 

Bleaching  BTTG (1999b) 

Dyeing  Lacasse (2004), European Commission (2003) 

Figure 20: Main life cycle steps in polypropylene production

47
Chapter 2

 Additional materials
During the finishing and product confection steps, certain materials may be added or attached to the
fabric to prepare the final product. These materials are not considered textiles, although they can form
an essential part of the product. These include: polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and feathers.
The details on their inclusion or exclusion from the model are briefly outlined hereafter.

 Polyurethane/polypropylene
Polyurethane/polypropylene (PUR/PP) is one of the main backing materials used in the production of
carpets. A few clothes also include PUR/PP in their compositions, such as swimwear or sportswear.
LCI data referred to the production of polyurethane foam and of polypropylene granulates and they
were derived from the Ecoinvent 2.0 database.

 PVC
Certain products have also undergone lamination which provides a waterproof coating. PVC has been
considered in the model as the main coating material for the following products:
 anoraks, ski jackets, etc.
 raincoats
 overcoats, car coats, and capes
 ski suits.

Waterproofing has therefore been applied for all of these end product categories, for each type of
synthetic fibre.

 Feathers
Feathers are mainly packed into household bedding items such as pillows, eiderdown comforters,
cushions, etc. This material has been excluded from the model as relevant LCI data could not be
found. However, it is worth noting that this material makes up less than 1 % of the total consumption
and its exclusion is therefore not thought to significantly influence the results of the analysis.

2.2.1.2 Product confection – all products except carpets

Once the finished panel of fabric is made, it must then be cut and sewn into the final product. Due to
their intricate shapes and varying sizes, the cutting of apparel into the necessary shapes can result in
large amounts of fabric loss. This fabric must then be disposed of or reused for other applications.
Table 18 presents average figures of the material losses associated with the cutting process of the
different products. Certain weaving and knitting technologies allow for preshaped parts or complete
garments to be produced instead of large panels (e.g. fully fashioned). This, however has not been
included in the inventory as it is difficult to quantify what share of products on the market are
produced using these technologies.

In addition to taking losses into account, the energy consumption of the confection process was also
considered in the LCI (Schäfer et al., 2003; Collins et al., 2002).

48
 Chapter 2

Table 18: Fabric losses from cutting process according to Ensait

Textile products  Losses (%) 

Clothing products 

T‐shirts, vests, singlets, etc.  13 
Shirts or blouses  13 
Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc.  10 
Briefs, panties, underpants, etc.  16 
Hosiery  0 
Slips, petticoats and girdles  18 
Nightwear  13 
Negligees, bathrobes, dressing gowns, etc.  15 
Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery  18 
Anoraks, ski‐jackets, etc.  12 
Jackets and blazers  16 
Raincoats  14 
Overcoats, car coats, capes  14 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc.  14 
Shorts  15 
Skirts  14 
Dresses  18 
Swimwear  18 
Tracksuits  15 
Ski suits  14 
Suits and ensembles  14 
Gloves  18 
Scarves, shawls, etc.  4 
Ties, bow ties and cravats  5 

Household products 

Table linens  9 
Kitchen and toilet linens  5 
Floor cloths, dishcloths, dusters, etc.  4.5 
Bedding  4 
Bed linens  3 
Blankets and travelling rugs  3 
Curtains, blinds, etc.   3 

49
Chapter 2

2.2.1.3 Product confection – Carpets

Carpets should be considered apart from the classification described in table 18. First, carpets are not
only made of fibres, since they have a plastic backing, assumed in the model to be made of
polypropylene and polyurethane (Potting and Blok, 1995). This PUR/PP mix is not a fibre but a
backing material. In addition, the conversion of yarn to carpet can be done through a specific process
called tufting. It was therefore necessary to search for data on this process. Concerning with the first
steps, i.e. from fibre production to dyeing, the modelling was based on the different fibres that
compose the carpets. References for the data used are shown in table 19. Tufting is the final phase of
this production chain and the carpet was therefore considered a finished product once tufted.

Table 19: Data sources used to model the production and processing of carpets

Processing step  Source 

Fibre production and processing  Data sources for the corresponding fibres 

Yarn formation  Data sources for the corresponding fibres 

Dyeing  Data sources for the corresponding fibres 

Tufting (confection)  Potting and Blok (1995) 

2.2.2 Distribution phase

The distribution of textile components can occur throughout the whole production cycle. For example,
fibres may be exported to one country for processing, to another for finishing, and the resulting fabric
may be exported to yet another country for manufacturing of the final end product. As transportation
processes occur several times throughout the production process, it would be challenging to build a
model which accurately represents the distribution of textile products during their production cycle.
Furthermore, it would be necessary to use import and export figures for textiles at very specific stages
during the production stage. However, this data was found to be unavailable or unreliable. For
simplification, thus, only transportation of the finished end product has been taken into account in the
model.

To build the transport model, it was necessary to determine the origin of product imports. To simplify
the model further, instead of focusing on several individual areas, countries of origin were aggregated
into groups.

Table 20 presents the main areas considered in the model, along with a list of the countries they
represent. Ideally, distribution impacts should only be considered for those end products that are
imported and actually consumed in the EU-27. However, EUROPROMS data does not allow for
distinguishing between products that have been imported from outside Europe, and those that have just
transited within the EU-27 and then been re-exported. In this context, the distribution impacts have
been allocated to all end products (considering the apparent consumption). This potentially results in
overestimating the distribution impacts as we could not distinguish between products that are in
transit, imported for consumption in the EU-27, or produced in the EU-27 for domestic consumption.
The share of each import area over total imports is shown in table 21.

50
 Chapter 2

Table 20: Sources of end product imports

Processing step  Source 

Mediterranean  Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Israel, Egypt 

North America  US, Canada, Mexico 

South America  Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay 

China  China 

South Asia  India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Sri Lanka 

South East Asia  Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia 

Emerging Asian countries  South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan 

Table 21: Share of import areas according to product types

Zone 

Emerging Asian 
South East Asia 
Mediterranean 

Product type 
North America 

South America 

South Asia 

countries 
China 
(%) 

Woven garments  29  3  0  44  15  7  2 

Knitted garments  28  4  0  31  21  8  5 

Carpets  20  10  3  14  45  1  0 

Source: EURATEX, 2008 

The majority of textile products (approximately 92 %) are imported by maritime transportation

(Rodrigue et al., 2006). The transport distances for this method of transport were based on sea freight
from major ports in the above countries to Rotterdam. This port was chosen as it is the largest in
Europe, and it is centrally located. The distances used in the model are presented in table 22.

51
Chapter 2

Table 22: Average distance for major textile import sources in km

Average distance by zone 

(km) 
Transportation  

Emerging Asian 
South East Asia 
Mediterranean 

North America 

South America 

South Asia 

countries 
mode 

China 
Sea  4 894  10 398  11 598  19 601  12 354  15 999  17 885 

Air  2 418  6 786  10 384  9 262  7 482  10 154  9 774 

Of the textile imports, 8% are transported by air freight (Thuermer, 2009). For this transport mode, the
same distances as for maritime transportation were used. Paris, with both very significant cargo traffic
and with a central location in Europe, was the destination chosen to calculate air distances. The
distances by sea were calculated using the following tool: http://e-ships.net/dist.htm.

Distances were then averaged in order to get realistic values per product type and per transportation
mode. These values are shown in table 23, as they were used in the model.

In addition to overseas transport, products can be distributed by inland transportation. Truck is the
vehicle of choice in this case. However, distances can vary enormously. A hypothetical average figure
of 600 km was determined for all product types.

LCI data for each of these transportation modes have been derived from the Ecoinvent 2.0 database.
Inland waterways have not been considered in the model.

Table 23: Distances taken into account according to product type and transportation mode in km

Average distance, 
(km) 
Product type 
 road   sea  air 

Woven garments  600  13 601  6 969 

Knitted garments  600  12 722  6 738 

Household textiles  600  10 758  6 199 

52
 Chapter 2

2.2.3 Use phase

To model the use phase, it was necessary to include data on European clothes washing, drying and
ironing patterns (see references for list of publications). Several factors must be taken into account
when considering the textiles use phase. Both the characteristics of each appliance, the detergents used
and the user behaviour all have an important influence on the environmental impacts related to this
phase. Ultimately it is the individual consumer who has the greatest influence in determining the
environmental impact of this phase because factors such as washing frequency, wash temperature and
drying methods are ultimately decided by the individual consumer. Moreover, these patterns can differ
from country to country. In Figure 21, a comparison of tumble drying habits in Poland and the UK is
shown. Apparently, tumble drying is used more frequently in the UK than in Poland.

100% 

90%  Never

80%  Rarely 
Sometimes
70% 
Often 
60% 
Always
50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 
Poland UK

Source: PricewaterHouseCoopers, 2009 
Figure 21: Tumble drying habits of residents in Poland and the UK

As habits can differ greatly from one country to another, the model has been based on the average
scenario in the EU-27. The data below have been derived from a series of European studies which
have focused mainly on user washing habits across the EU-27. The washing, drying and ironing
parameters included in the model are described in the following subsections.

Note that for all the washable end products, the same basic assumptions on user behaviour (e.g.
washing temperature, iron power) have been taken for both clothing and household textiles and are
reported below in the following subsections. In addition, we made user behaviour assumptions specific
to each end product (e.g. number of washes, ironing time) and these are reported in Annex 1.

Due to unavailability of data, the use phase of carpets and floor coverings (vacuuming, stain removal,
etc.) was not considered in the study.

53
Chapter 2

2.2.3.1 Washing

 Washing machine use

The energy and water consumption of washing machines was derived from the European Commission
Ecodesign preparatory study (Presutto et al., 2007). The majority of clothes washing machines fall
within energy class A. The average capacity is 5.36 kg (Presutto et al., 2007). The model is based on
standard testing values that have been corrected to take into account real life practices. The main
characteristics of standard and real life washing machines are presented in table 24.

Table 24: Standard and real life characteristics

  Standard case  Real life case 

Washing temperature (°C)  60  45.8 

Load (kg/cycle)  5.36  3.43 

Energy consumption of program selection (kWh/cycle)  0.998  0.72 

Water consumption of program selection (l/cycle)  50.7  46.3 

Source: Presutto et al. (2007) 

Although in the standard case, a washing machine can wash a full load of approximately
5.36 kg/cycle, in reality, loads are often smaller (3.43 kg/cycle, which is approximately 64 % of the
standard case). Clothes washing temperatures also vary depending on the type of fabric washed. In
Presutto et al. (2007), it was determined that the average wash temperature is 45.8 °C in the real life
case, compared to standard testing.

With the reduction in washing temperature, energy consumption is also reduced. In the textile LCA
model, energy consumption was corrected using a scaling factor of 0.038 kWhkg-1K-1 in order to take
into account the impact on energy consumption of reducing washing temperature (Presutto et al.,
2007). With a decrease in capacity, energy and water consumption of washing machines are lower
than those obtained in standard conditions at full load. These effects have been taken into account
using a dependency factor of 0.0567 kWh/kg for energy and 2.817 l/kg for water. Detailed calculations
and sources are available in Presutto et al. (2007).

Washing frequency is an important parameter too. Table 25 shows the washing, drying and ironing
consumption patterns that have been considered in the study, for the 10 most important cloth
categories in terms of volume. The exhaustive data and sources can be found in Annex 1.

LCI data on electricity and water consumption have been gathered from the Ecoinvent database. The
European electricity grid mix (1) and the domestic consumption of tap water (2) have been considered,
respectively.

It should be noted that based on the findings of Presutto et al. (2007), the penetration rate of washing
machines in the EU is said to be close to 100 %. It is therefore assumed that washing is always carried
out in a washing machine. As a consequence, hand washing and dry cleaning have been excluded from
the model. Production, repair and end-of-life of the appliance were also not taken into account in the
textile LCA model.

1
( ) Electricity, low voltage, production RER, at grid/RER S.
(2) Tap water, at user/RER S.
54
 Chapter 2

Table 25: Washing, drying and ironing parameters for the 10 most important categories in volume

wash/handwash 

Ratio iron/wash 
Ratio dry/wash 
Ratio machine 
Number of 

Lifetime  
washes 

(years) 
(%) 

(%) 

(%) 
Textile product 

Hosiery (knitted or crocheted)  104  100  0  0  2 

T‐shirts, vests, singlets, etc.  50  100  25  100  1 

Briefs, panties, underpants, etc. 
104  100  25  0  2 
(knitted or crocheted) 

Gloves (knitted or crocheted)  4  100  0  0  2 

Shirts or blouses (excluding knitted or 
25  100  25  100  1 
crocheted) 

Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc.  50  100  25  100  3 

Shirts or blouses (knitted or crocheted)  25  100  25  100  1 

Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. 
50  100  25  100  3 
(cotton) 
Curtains and interior blinds, curtain or 
20  100  45  100  10 
bed valances, of woven materials (m2) 
Brassieres  40  100  0  0  2 

 Detergent use
An average consumption of 139.76 g of detergent per wash cycle has been assumed according to
Presutto et al. (2007). Considering an average load of 3.4 kg, this gives a detergent consumption of
41.1 grams per kilogram of clothes washed. The LCI for the production of detergent is based on a
Procter and Gamble study from 2000 (Saouter and Van Hoof, 2000).

Modelling detergent products is challenging, as detergents can be used under several distinct forms,
e.g. powder, liquid, tablets. Their production processes are evolving rapidly. Modern detergents are
usually based on concentrated formulas and they are also efficient at low temperatures. An average
inventory was modelled by Saouter and van Hof (2000) and has been used here. However, the
proportions or even the nature of components are likely to vary significantly in the upcoming years.
Formulation and associated life cycle inventories taken into account are listed in table 26.

Due to the lack of availability of some data in Ecoinvent 2.0 (4 substances are indeed missing), it has
been necessary to scale other proportions up. Some inventories have been substituted by similar
products’ inventories, such as acetic acid for citric acid and sodium percarbonate for sodium
carbonate. The impacts of packaging materials have been moreover considered (see table 27).

In addition to the production of the individual components and the packaging material, the production
and the end-of-life phases of the detergent (emissions to water) have been included. The direct
emissions considered are shown in Table 28. As no direct emissions to air were available, these
potential flows have been disregarded and water emissions are therefore considered the only potential
impacts associated with the detergents.

55
Chapter 2

Table 26: Typical composition of a powder detergent and LCI data used for modelling

Initial  Final 
Life cycle inventory considered  
Ingredient  formulation  formulation
(1) in %  (2) 
 in % 

AE11‐PO  2  Ethoxylated alcohols (AE11), palm oil at plant/RER U  2.1 

Ethoxylated  alcohols  (AE7),  palm  kernel  oil  at 
AE7‐pc  4  4.3 
plant/RER U 
Alkylbenzene  sulphonate,  linear,  petrochemical  at 
LAS‐pc  7.8  8.3 
plant/RER U 
Citric acid  5.2  Acetic acid, 98 % in H2O at plant/RER U  5.5 
Layered  sodium  silicate,  SKS‐6,  powder  at  plant/RER 
NA‐Silicate powder  3  3.2 
U 
Zeolite  20.1  Zeolite, powder at plant/RER U  21.5 

Sodium carbonate  17  Sodium percarbonate, powder at plant/RER U  18.1 

Sodium  perborate,  monohydrate,  powder  at 
Perborate monohydrate  8.7  9.3 
plant/RER U 
Sodium perborate, tetrahydrate, powder at plant/RER 
Perborate tetrahydrate  11.5  12.2 
U 
Antifoam S1,2‐3522  0.5  Unavailable  0 

FWA DAS‐1  0.2  Unavailable  0 

Polyacrylate  4  Unavailable  0 

Protease  1.4  Unavailable  0 

Sodium  sulphate,  powder,  production  mix  at 
Sodium sulphate  0.4  0.4 
plant/RER U 
Water  14.2  Water, completely softened, at plant  15.1 
(1) Source: Saouter and van Hof 
(2) Source: Ecoinvent v2.0 

Table 27: Packaging used for 1 kg of powder detergent and LCI datasets used

Ingredient  Life cycle inventory considered (1)  Quantity in g (2)  

Paper  Paper, wood‐containing, LWC at regional storage/RER S  217 

Packaging,  corrugated  board,  mixed  fibre,  single  wall  at 

Corrugated board  1082 
plant/RER S 

HDPE  HDPE resin E  81 

(1) Source: Ecoinvent v2.0 
(2) Source: Saouter and van Hof (2000) 

56
 Chapter 2

Table 28: Direct emissions to water from 100 kg of detergents according to

Flow  Unit  Production  Fabrication  End‐of‐Life  Packaging 

BOD  g  117  4.9  8580  1.59 

COD  g  175  10.1  20700  9.01 

Total P  g  45.9  ‐  0.06  0.00 

Total N  g  19.1  ‐  0.12  0.15 

Solids  g  56.6  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

Oil, grease  g  10.2  ‐  0.91  0.70 

Phenol  g  0.17  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

Ammonia  g  1.09  ‐  0.07  0.40 

Metals  kg  0.1  ‐  14.2  ‐ 

Source: Saouter and van Hoof (2000) 

The emissions assumed in Table 28 are, however, only valid for Belgium, where 37 % of the
households are not connected to a waste water treatment facility (Saouter and Van Hoof, 2000). In
Europe, on average, more households are connected to waste water treatment (table 29). Thus,
adjustments have to be made for the end-of-life phase. Concerning the large amount of metals (14.2
kg), it should be noted that it refers to the amount of sodium ion that is released into the water.

Table 29: Fraction of households connected to a waste water treatment facility in %

Inhabitants  
Primary  Secondary  Tertiary 
Country  No connection 
treatment  treatment  treatment  (in millions) 

Belgium  37  30  30  3  10.46 

Denmark  0  20  71  9  5.44 

UK  26  23  43  8  60.77 

France  0  35  62  3  63.5 

Germany  14  9  57  20  82.6 

Italy  40  15  45  0  58.88 

Netherlands  10  9  79  2  16.42 

Spain  53  5  40  2  44.28 

Sweden  5  1  10  84  9.12 

Source: Saouter and van Hoof (2000) 

When the shares were weighted according to the population, the average share of households that were
not connected to waste water treatment systems was 23 %. This share was used as an average for the
EU-27.

57
Chapter 2

An average abatement rate of 80 % when waste water is treated was considered (BIO 2007a). Thus,
38 % of total emissions are not removed in Europe, while the same parameter reaches 50 % for
Belgium. The scaling factor is then 38/50 = 77 %. These adjusted values are used for modelling the
life cycle inventory of detergent in the present model.

The adjusted figures for end-of-life emissions are shown in table 30.

Table 30: Direct emissions to water per 100 kg of detergents considered in the textile LCA model

Flow  Unit  End‐of‐Life 

BOD  g  6623 

COD  g  15980 

Total P  g  0.046 

Total N  g  0.093 

Solids  g  ‐ 

Oil, grease  g  0.70 

Phenol  g  ‐ 

Ammonia  g  0.054 

Metals  kg  11 

2.2.3.2 Drying

The drying of clothes was modelled based mainly on the European Commission Ecodesign
preparatory study for clothes dryers (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2009). The calculations have been
based on the use of machines which fall under energy class C. This category has been chosen as it
appears to be the most common type of machine used in European households. Moreover, figures for
the ‘Air vented tumble dryer’ have been used in the calculations as it is the most widespread
appliance. The energy use was thus assumed to be 2.01 kWh/cycle (full load of 6 kg) according to
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009). Key figures for the drying phase can be found in Annex 1.

We also assume that the average load of the dryer is 3.4 kg (compared to the maximum load of 6 kg
capacity). This is the same as the load assumed for washing machines (see Section 2.2.3.1).

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009), gives a function to calculate the energy used depending on the load.
According to this function, the energy use in this study was estimated at 2 kWh/cycle.

As the lifetime of textile products has been based on the number of washes, the frequency of tumble
drying was calculated in accordance with the number of washes. In PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009), it
was determined that washing machines are used at an average frequency of 220 cycles/year in EU-27
households. It is assumed that the frequency of tumble drying differs on average across the EU-27.
Figures obtained from PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009) determine tumble drying cycles at 2.36 per
week in summer, and 3.62 per week in winter. This equates to approximately 156 tumble dryer cycles
per household and year. It is therefore assumed that for every 100 washes, tumble drying occurs 71
times in households where both appliances are present. However, the ownership of tumble dryers must
also be taken into account and the rate of tumble dryer ownership can vary greatly from one country to
another. This discrepancy is mainly attributed to climatic differences, although economic factors can
also affect the rate of ownership. The tumble dryer ownership rate in different Member States is
presented in table 31.

58
 Chapter 2

Table 31: Rate of tumble dryer ownership in different EU-27 Member States

Dryer ownership  
Country  Climatic zone  Data Year 
(%) 

Finland  59  2004 

Cold 
Sweden  52  2004 

France  35  2008 

Germany  39  2005 

Poland  5  2008 

Denmark  Moderate  44  2004 

Ireland  46  2005 

United Kingdom  42.4  2008 

The Netherlands  68  2005 

Malta  12.2  2001 

Portugal  13  2006 

Warm 
Slovenia  18  2003 

Italy  9  2006 
Source: EEDAL 2009 

Based on the figures given in table 31, it has been assumed that the average rate of ownership is 35 %
in the EU-27. The average frequency of tumble drying compared to the frequency of clothes washing
was therefore determined to be 25 % (i.e. 35 % × 71 %).

Consistent with the methodological choices used for modelling washing machines, the European
electricity grid mix (1) has been considered while the potential impacts of dryer production, repair and
end-of-life have been disregarded.

2.2.3.3 Ironing

For the ironing of clothes, energy consumption has been calculated assuming an iron with an average
power of 1600 W. The duration of each ironing session for any item of clothing, which was
determined through the literature review and consultation with Ensait, is given in Annex 1; these
estimates were directly used to assess the energy consumption assuming that ironing requires 1.6 kWh
per hour.

Consistent with the methodological choices used for modelling washing machines, the European
electricity grid mix (1) has been considered and the potential impacts of iron production, repair and
end-of-life have been disregarded.

(1) Electricity, low voltage, production RER, at grid/RER S

59
Chapter 2

2.2.4 End-of-life

2.2.4.1 Overview over end-of-life routes

In the textile LCA model, impacts are related to the complete life cycle of textiles consumed in one
year in the EU-27. It was assumed that the stock of textiles is constant, i.e. the amount of textiles
disposed of equals the amount of end products produced.

At the end of their lifetime, textiles can be reused or recycled or they are disposed of by landfilling or
incineration (with and without energy recovery). Ideally, complete, specific and homogeneous datasets
are required for all Member States in order to model the end-of-life stage with accuracy. However, few
specific data on the end-of-life route of textiles have been found in the literature. For household
textiles, it has been assumed that no recycling or reuse takes place since the collection of household
textiles is not very common, unlike for clothing. It has therefore been assumed that household textiles
follow the ultimate disposal route (landfill or incineration). The end-of-life routes of clothing waste
were modelled according to data from the Ouvertes project (Textile Recycling Association, 2005), an
initiative of textile reuse and recycling players on the status of the industry in Europe.

Across Europe, it is estimated that between 15 % and 20 % of the disposed textiles tonnage is
collected (Textile Recycling Association, 2005), the rest are landfilled or incinerated. A 20 %
collection rate was considered in this study. First, the collected textiles are sorted and approximately
10–15 % is discarded for landfilling or incineration. Of the collected textiles, 50 % are recycled into
rags or are shredded, the top 3–10 % in quality is reused in Europe, while between 30–40 % are
exported for reuse in developing countries (Textile Recycling Association, 2005).

In order to model the share of landfilling and incineration (with or without energy recovery), data from
OECD (2008) on the disposal routes of municipal solid waste (MSW) were used. Six treatment routes
are given in OECD statistics for MSW (landfilling, composting, incineration with or without energy
recovery, recycling, other) for 20 countries of the EU-27 (1) (see table 32). Composting was not
considered relevant for textile disposal and recycling and reuse have already been considered. , The
shares of incineration and landfilling where thus rescaled up to 100%, as shown in Table 32.

Table 32: End-of-life routes of municipal solid waste

EU‐27 totals  
End of life route 
in % 

Recycling  17 

Composting  18 

Incineration with energy recovery  19 

Incineration without energy recovery  0 

Landfill  44 

Other  2 
Source: OECD, data from 2005 

(1) Only Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lituania, Malta, Romania and Slovenia are missing.
60
 Chapter 2

Table 33: Rescaled shares of the end-of-life routes of interest for the disposal of textile waste

End of life route  EU‐27 totals in % 

Incineration with energy recovery  29.6 

Incineration without energy recovery  0.8 

Landfill  69.6 

Figure 22 summarises the disposal routes and their corresponding shares, which were considered in
the baseline model.

Final share (% of 
clothing waste)

REUSE 
40%
25% in Europe 8%
75% in developing countries
20% COLLECTION
and 
50%
SORTING
RECYCLING 10%

CLOTHING
WASTE 10%
EU27
29.6%
INCINERATION
(with energy recovery)
24.3%
80%
ULTIMATE  0.8% INCINERATION
0.6%
DISPOSAL (without energy recovery)
69.6%
LANDFILL 57.1%

Data from OUVERTES  project

Data from OCDE

Figure 22: End-of-life routes of textile waste in EU27

2.2.4.2 Detailed description of the end-of-life model

 Landfilling and incineration

Concerning incineration, a generic LCI of textile incineration from the Ecoinvent 2.0 database was
used. This inventory is representative of the average situation in the EU. The impacts of the
incineration of natural and synthetic fibres were distinguished by setting the carbon dioxide emission
factor for natural fibre at 0, as CO2 from the incineration of natural fibres is compensated by the CO2
absorbed during the plant growth.

61
Chapter 2

Energy recovery provides environmental benefits as the heat and/or electricity that is recovered
prevents the production of energy from alternative sources. According to Ecoinvent, 1.36 MJ of heat
and 2.86 MJ of electricity are recovered on average for 1 kg of textile incinerated (1). It has been
considered that electricity substitutes the average EU electricity mix (2), and that heat substitutes heat
provided from natural gas (3).

Concerning landfilling, WISARD 4.2 was used to produce LCIs of landfilling because it allows for
distinguishing between synthetic fibres and natural fibres. The modelling of synthetic and natural
fibres was based on data referred to nylon and cotton, respectively.

 Recycling and Reuse

Once a textile product is sent to recycling it can face many potential fates depending on its quality and
condition. Once sorted, each product can either be recycled or reused. The end-of-life routes can be
particularly complex as presented in Figure 23.

Source: Hawley J M, 2006 
Figure 23: General Life Cycle Scheme for Postconsumer Textile Waste

Recycling – Fabric must be converted into fibres in order to be reused. Fibre breakdown can be
carried out by cutting, shredding, carding and other mechanical processes. The separated fibres can be
converted into an array of different products, including stuffing for upholstery products, insulation and
roofing felt, carpet components and lower quality blankets. The majority of garment products used for
this process are unwearable, although some products can be created with pieces of used garments
(such as designer clothing). It is not possible to recover fibres from most fibre blends however. Some

(1) Disposal, textiles, soiled, 25 % water, to municipal incineration/CH S.

(2) Electricity, low voltage, production RER, at grid/RER S.
(3) Heat, natural gas, at boiler condensing modulating <100kW/RER S.

62
 Chapter 2

textile fibres can also be broken down to be incorporated into high quality paper. Textile products that
have become completely un-usable can be cut to produce industrial polishing and wiping rags.
Usually, cotton is sought out for this purpose due to its absorbent qualities. Some synthetic fibres with
good wicking properties (such as sports attire) are also sought after.

Environmental benefits may arise from recycling because the environmental burdens associated with
the manufacture of new products can be avoided. Benefits can also be due to avoided disposal of
wastes provided that these impacts are higher than those of the recycling processes themselves.
Although textile recycling is one of the oldest types of recycling, the average rate of textile recycling
is still somewhat low. This rate can also differ greatly from one country to another depending on
factors such as infrastructure and education.

As no detailed data on recycled textile waste were found, the baseline model considers that all
recycled clothing waste (i.e. 10 % of all clothing waste) is recycled into cleaning rags. We assume that
they substitute paper cleaning rags as in the life cycle assessment for reuse/recycling of donated waste
textiles conducted by Woolridge et al. (2006). Assuming that 1 tonne of rags made out of clothing is
equivalent to 1 tonne of paper rags, there is an energy credit of 18 303 kWh electricity per tonne
(Woolridge et al., 2006). The average EU electricity mix has been considered (1).

Reuse – Most of the reusable clothing waste is exported to be sold as second-hand clothing. Apart
from the impacts of transportation, this requires little to no modification of the products, especially if
they are already clean. At times, a rummage through items in the textiles banks produces what is
known by some as ‘diamonds’. These are garments which are of high value even in their used state
(although usually in good condition). These include vintage and collectors’ items, as well as certain
branded or designer items. Although this is often the smallest category, it is usually the most lucrative
for end-of-life managers. With the advent of fast and cheap fashion, however, it is believed that this
category will decrease within coming years.

The advantage of reusing clothing is to prolong its useful life, thus reducing the need to produce new
natural or synthetic fibres. In the baseline model, 8 % of discarded clothes were considered to be
reused and 25 % of the reused textiles were considered to be reused in the EU, the rest being exported
to developing countries to be sold on second-hand markets. Reused clothes in the model are given a
50 % longer lifetime compared to non-reused clothes. Regarding transportation issues, clothes reused
in the EU are assumed to travel 600 km by truck while clothes exported outside the EU are assumed to
travel 600 km by truck and 10 000 km by ship. No washing has been included.

Reusing clothing offers environmental benefits as second-hand clothing prevents the need for
producing new items. These benefits are dependent on the substitution ratio between new clothes and
second-hand clothes. This ratio is likely to be higher and closer to 1 in developing countries than in the
EU as in a context of fast fashion and greater purchasing power, consumers are keener on buying new
clothes. For simplification, and in the absence of reliable data, this ratio has been set to 1 for all reused
textiles in Europe.

As the use of textiles in non-European countries falls out of the scope of the study, reused clothes in
other parts of the world were not taken into account in the model and were only given impacts related
to exportation.
A description of how reuse was included in the model is given in Section 2.1

(1) Electricity, low voltage, production RER, at grid/RER S.

63
Chapter 2

2.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase aims at evaluating and understanding the magnitude
and significance of the potential environmental impacts of a product system. The purpose of the
impact assessment phase is to convert the LCI results into potential impacts on Areas of Protection
(AoPs) or damage categories. The UNEP/Setac framework for LCIA operates with three AoPs: human
beings, ecosystems, and resources.

Environmental impacts result from a complex chain of environmental mechanisms. For instance, the
release of greenhouse gases will contribute to radiative forcing ultimately affecting ecosystems and
human health. According to ISO 14044, the indicator of an impact category can be chosen anywhere
along the pathway linking inventory data to impacts on the AoPs (see Figure 24). Characterisation at
midpoint level models and expresses impacts through indicators located somewhere along the
environmental mechanism. Characterisation at endpoint level models and expresses impacts on the
entities described by the AoPs, i.e. on human health, on the natural environment and on natural
resources, so that subsequent modelling becomes necessary.

Source: ILCD Handbook, 2009 
Figure 24: Midpoints and endpoints levels relative to emissions of greenhouse gases

The main criterion for choosing an impact characterisation model is to evaluate whether the
environmental mechanism is sufficiently and effectively modelled and the inventory substances
consistently included in the model. The latter aspect is particularly relevant for toxicity and aquatic
ecotoxicity, due to the large amount of chemicals released to water in the textile finishing industry.
Providing characterisation factors at midpoint and endpoint levels, ReCiPe – hierarchist perspective –
was chosen as the LCIA methodology for this project (Goedkoop et al., 2008).

ReCiPe, which is a recommended LCIA method in the ILCD handbook with reference to endpoint
indicators, proposes a harmonised set of characterisation factors, hence limiting interpretation
incoherence that would have been obtained by using multiple methodologies.

64
 Chapter 2

Endpoints usually ease the understanding of LCA results as they are less numerous than midpoints
indicators and they are more concrete (see Figure 25). However, it should be kept in mind that
endpoints indicators are less robust than midpoint indicators because the environmental impacts are
modelled further in the environmental chain.

Source: Goedkoop et al., 2008 
Figure 25: The ReCiPe framework

In total, 18 midpoint indicators and 3 endpoint indicators have been included in the textile LCA model
as presented in table 34 with their respective units.

65
Chapter 2

Table 34: Midpoint and endpoint indicators considered in ReCiPe

Midpoint indicators  Unit 

Climate change  kg CO2 eq 

Ozone depletion  kg CFC‐11 eq 

Photochemical oxidant formation  kg NMVOC. 

Particulate matter formation  kg PM10 eq 

Ionising radiation  kg 235U eq 

Terrestrial acidification  kg SO2 eq 

Human toxicity  kg 1.4‐DB eq 

Terrestrial ecotoxicity  kg 1.4‐DB eq 

Freshwater ecotoxicity  kg 1.4‐DB eq 

Marine ecotoxicity  kg 1.4‐DB eq 

Metal depletion  kg Fe eq 

Fossil depletion  kg oil eq 

Water depletion  m3 

Freshwater eutrophication  kg P eq 

Marine eutrophication  kg N eq 

Agricultural land occupation  m2 * a 

Urban land occupation  m2 * a 

Natural land transformation  m2 

Endpoint indicators  Unit 

Disability Adjusted  
Human health 
Life Year (DALY) 

Ecosystem diversity  Species*yr 

Resource availability  USD 

66
 Chapter 2

2.4 Limitations of the model

 Lack of differentiation for blends of fibre types

Although the breakdown provides differentiated amounts for each fibre type, fibre blends cannot be
distinguished. The breakdown of market share for different fibre blends is difficult to determine.
However, often during production steps, the different constituent fibre types are produced separately
and then woven together. Therefore, by weighting the percentage of fibre types for each item, the
model takes into account fibre blends to a certain extent, but their production and impacts cannot be
isolated from pure products.

Furthermore, dyeing steps may have to incorporate techniques used for the different fibre types that
are blended in successive steps. This may imply that results for production are not significantly
affected by considering fibre types separately. However, later steps may be compromised. In the use
phase, for example, the lifetime of blended items (measured in the model as a number of washes)
could be different. The baseline model does not take this issue into consideration since the data used
do not allow for identifying the various possible blends for each product.

A simplified analysis was carried out in Section 4.7.1 in order to understand if a better environmental
performance could result from the inclusion in the LCA model of more detailed parameters related to
fibres blending.

 Technological representativeness, and production data uncertainty and specificity

Due to the complexity of the textile production, it is challenging to gather all the data necessary in
order to build an accurate LCI baseline scenario. Table 35 presents a qualitative indication of the
specificity of the data gathered to perform the environmental analysis. PUR/PP and feathers are not
fibres and they do not appear in the table because they follow different process chains. Only the 9 fibre
types used in the baseline scenario (see table 1) are included in table 35.

Table 35 shows that some of the fibre types are affected by lack of data. It should be kept in mind that
the inputs for processing steps have been based on the findings of a few available studies. These
studies can only provide a sample of production practices, as these can vary greatly from one country
to another and indeed from one mill to another. The data above were mainly derived from European
studies; however a significant market share of textile products is produced outside the EU-27. The
sources of these differences and their influences can vary. For example, producers in the EU-27 may
have stricter legislation governing their manufacturing practices in comparison with other countries.
Labour and running costs may also be higher, and therefore, there is an incentive to cut down on raw
material consumption and also optimise the running of manufacturing technologies which may replace
manual labour. The quality and types of items produced can also have global variations. Italy, for
example, is currently the leading manufacturer of luxury textile goods. The types of techniques used to
manufacture these products can differ somewhat from those of conventional or lower quality products
(1). In particular, data for viscose and silk were based on production practices in Italy and it is
therefore uncertain whether the data are truly representative of the global market.

However, the differences in production technologies could not be taken into account due to the
scarcity of geographically-specific data as well as the lack of detailed information on product flows
considering the high level of fragmentation of the textile industry. Therefore global or EU life cycle
inventories are implicitly considered to be representative of average practices.

 Variations in consumer behaviour

Several factors can contribute to discrepancies between different countries. Factors such as climate can
influence clothes washing habits. In countries with a warmer and drier climate, consumers may opt
more for air drying than machine drying, however the washing of clothes may be more frequent. The
price of energy and water may also have an effect on consumer behaviour with regard to the

(1) Textile Exchange, Industry overview, http://www.teonline.com/industry-overview.html

67
Chapter 2

maintenance of textile products. Where prices are high and the average household income is low, more
consumers may opt for more traditional care methods such as hand washing. Living conditions can
also affect use phase habits, and these can also differ within each country. Individuals who are
accommodated in households with less space (especially lesser outdoor space) may tumble dry items
due to lack of space to line dry them. In countries where a large proportion of the population lives in
cities, the frequency of tumble drying may also be higher than in countries where a larger rural or
suburban population exists. Ownership of electric appliances like washing machines, or dryers also
depends on household income (Berry, 2002).

In our model, we used a fixed set of assumptions to represent many individuals. The habits related to
textile use and cleaning are unlikely to be accurately represented by such a narrow set of assumptions.
Consumer behaviour data are important for producing accurate LCAs because the assessment of
environmental impacts and prioritisation relies on these assumptions on behaviour. Due to the above
factors, variability from one consumer to another can be a significant source of uncertainty. As the
data cannot account for such variations, the model was based on an average scenario for EU-27
households.

Table 35: Qualitative assessment of data specificity according to fibre type and production step

Fibre type 

Polypropylene 
Polyamide 
Polyester 

Production or processing step 

Viscose 
Cotton 

Acrylic 
Wool 

Flax 
Silk 
Raw materials production  +++ +++ ++ ++ + – +++ +++ ++
Stripping  +++
Combing  +++
+++ ++ +++ +++
Yarn production 

Scouring 
Top making  +++
Carbonisation  +++
Bleaching  ++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++
Drying  + – – – – – – ++
Lubrication/Sizing  ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Spinning  +++ +++ +++ +++ ++ – +++ +++ ++
Desizing  ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ – – +++ ++
Weaving  ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
formation 
Fabric 

Knitting  ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Singeing  ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++
Kier boiling  ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++
Anti‐felting treatment  +++
Printing pretreatment  +++ – – – – +++ +++ – –
Softening  ++ – – – – – +++ – –
+++ +++
Finishing 

Colours preparation  – – – – – – –
Washing/soaping  – – – – – +++ +++ – –
Rinsing  – – – – – – – – –
Dyeing  +++ +++ +++ ++ +++ – +++ +++ +
Printing  – – – – – +++ – – –
Stitching  ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
+++ = Very specific to this fibre type. 
++ = Somewhat specific, though extrapolated from similar fibres.  
+ = Low specificity as data were based on assumptions, or data were partially missing. 
– = Process may be common to this fibre type but data unavailable or very unreliable.  
Grey = Not applicable to this fibre type. 

68
 Chapter 2

 End-of-life uncertainties
Due to a lack of information on end-of-life of textiles, some assumptions had to be made. To begin
with, a key assumption concerns the substitution ratio between new clothes and second-hand clothes.
This is an essential assumption since it determines the avoidance of the production of new clothes
which is directly linked to the environmental benefits of reusing clothes. In the absence of reliable
data, it was assumed in the model that every second-hand item reused in Europe replaces the
production of a new item but this assumption is believed to be optimistic. However no study has been
able to come up with a reliable method in order to evaluate the substitution ratio between new and
second-hand clothes. In the streamlined LCA conducted by ERM based on the Salvation’s Army
recycling and reuse activities (ERM, 2002a) it is reported that ‘it would be extremely difficult to
define the scope and a methodology for a study that could answer this question’. This issue is where
the most controversy lies with regard to the evaluation of the environmental credits of clothing reuse.

Another issue linked to clothing reuse is the uncertainty associated with the estimation of the lifetime
of second-hand clothes compared to new clothes. In the model, reused clothes are given a 50 % longer
lifetime compared to non-reused clothes but no study has been found to support this assumption. More
information would be needed to be able to assess the possible difference in the lifetime of new clothes
and second-hand clothes.

In addition, the impacts due to the collection and sorting of the used clothes were not included within
the model. However, the sorting is usually manual and thus the associated impacts can be assumed to
be very low. The impacts of the packaging of the clothes for transportation to their second-use
destinations were also left out also because the benefits from preventing new clothes production
largely prevail over these impacts: in a 2007 study on a linen shirt (BIO, 2007a), for example,
packaging was found to represent less than 0.5 % of overall impacts of the shirt life cycle.

In order to be able to model the benefits of clothes being recycled it was also necessary to determine
the material that is substituted by recycled products. The model is based on the approach proposed by
Woolridge et al. (2006) which considers that the recycled used clothes are converted to cleaning rags
and substitute paper cleaning rags on a 1 to 1 equivalence ratio. However, this assumption is rather
simplistic and appears questionable. There is thus some uncertainty regarding the evaluation of the
environmental credits brought by clothes recycling but unfortunately no specific information on this
issue could be found.

2.5 Summary

 The textile LCA model at a glance and its main underlying assumptions and limitations
The key characteristics of the textile LCA model are given below.
‐ The model is a bottom-up life cycle analysis of the consumption of household textiles and
clothes in the EU-27. The model takes into account all impacts of the production, distribution,
use and end-of-life of textiles that are produced in a given year to satisfy the European
apparent consumption.
‐ Market data for 2007 was retrieved from the Europroms database. There were 101 end
products linked to specific information regarding their composition (fibre type breakdown),
their weight, their production processes (knitted, woven, laminated), their lifetime and the care
practices they were associated with (e.g. ironing or not).
‐ The baseline scenario of the model covers the following fibre types: cotton, wool, viscose,
flax, silk, polyester, polyamide, acrylic, and polypropylene. In addition to these fibre types,
additional data were gathered to assess the improvement potential due to organic and GM
cotton and hemp. Polyurethane, PVC and feathers were also included.
‐ Technical and environmental information were gathered from an exhaustive literature review.
The life cycle inventory was then built based on the data contained in Ecoinvent 2.0, in
Wisard 4.2 and in PlasticsEurope.

69
Chapter 2

‐ The life cycle impacts were assessed according to the ReCiPe method – hierarchist
perspective. This methodology allows for the quantification of potential impacts at both
midpoint and endpoint level.

Due to a lack of data, the assumptions given below were necessary:

‐ Importation for EU consumption could not be distinguished from importation for transit.
Importation impacts were therefore allocated to all end products consumed in the EU.
‐ Reused textiles in Europe were included in the model and a lifetime extension of 50 % was
given to the reused item. Reused clothes are also assumed to prevent the production of new
items with a 1:1 ratio. In addition, only the impacts of exportation were considered for items
that are reused abroad.
‐ Blended fibres were included in the model as the breakdown per fibre of each item was
considered. However, it was not possible to take into account for some specific features that
blended fibres holds compared to ‘pure’ fibres. A simplified case study was carried out in
order to understand the significance of considering these aspects in the assessment of the
environmental performance of a specific end product (i.e. a T-shirt).
‐ Recycling was modelled as recycling into wiping rags considering that textile wiping rags can
replace paper towels. Only energy benefits were included in the model.
‐ Concerning the production of fibres, some processes were extrapolated from other fibre types
as no fibre-specific data were available.
‐ Processes are tightly linked to product quality, implying that for a given fibre type, end
products will not necessarily follow the same processes. However, as this information could
not be obtained, it was assumed that all fabrics undergo a complete process chain which might
lead to an overestimation of environmental impacts.
‐ No specific data were found to differentiate production practices based on the geographical
location. Thus, it was assumed that European (or, more generally, western) practices are
representative for the all textiles industry.

 Summary of baseline parameters

Table 36 sums up the main parameters that were selected to model the baseline scenario for the
distribution, use and end-of-life stages. Regarding the production stage, the parameters and
assumptions are specific to each fibre type and thus it was not possible to provide a simple overview.
More detailed information can be found in Section 2.2.1.

70
 Chapter 2

Table 36: Summary of the main baseline parameters of the textile LCA model

Life cycle 
Main parameters in the baseline scenario 
phase 

All products  600 km by truck 

Woven clothes  13 601 6 969 

Sea (km) 

Air (km) 
Distribution  • 92 % ship freight 
Knitted clothes   12 722 6 738 
• 8 % air freight 
Household textiles  10 758 6 199 

Load  4.3 kg/cycle 

Average temperature  45.8 °C 

Washing  Energy consumption  0.72 kWh/cycle 

Water consumption  46.3 L/cycle 
Use 
Detergent use  139.76 g/cycle 

Load  4.3 kg/cycle 
Drying 
Energy consumption  2.01 kWh/cycle 

Ironing  Energy consumption  0.027 kWh/min 

• 8 % reuse as second‐hand clothes: 

              25 % EU   

      Associated transport: 600 km by truck 

              75 % world 
Clothing waste 
      Associated transport: 600 km by truck + 10 000 km by ship 

End‐of‐life   
 10 % recycling as wipers 
• 24.3 % incineration with energy recovery 
• 0.6 % incineration without energy recovery 
• 57.1 % landfill 
 
 
• 29.6 % incineration with energy recovery 
Household textile waste  • 0.8 % incineration without energy recovery 
• 69.6 % landfill 
 

71
 Chapter 3

3 RESULTS OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO

3.1 Overview
This section presents the results for the baseline scenario. As presented in the previous section, the
LCA model encompasses the impacts related to the full life cycle of clothes and household textiles to
satisfy the final consumption in the EU-27 in 2008. Reused items from the previous year were also
included assuming that reuse rate and textile apparent consumption would be constant over the
following two years. As already mentioned in Section 2.2, in the baseline scenario, the average
weights of each end product are considered. Results for minimum and maximum weights are
presented in Annex 3. Though there is uncertainty in the absolute impacts of textile consumption, this
does not affect the improvement option assessment. Table 37 presents the environmental impacts of
textile consumption in the EU-27 in 2008 according to the midpoint and endpoint indicators of
ReCiPe.

Table 37: Environmental impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27 according to the midpoint and
endpoint indicators of ReCiPe

Distribution 
Production 

End‐of‐life 
Indicator 

Total 
Unit 

Use 
Climate change  Mt CO2 eq  213  20.7  185  ‐6.38  412.52  
Ozone depletion  t CFC‐11 eq  16.5  2.60  10.4  ‐0.0348  29.42 
Photochemical oxidant formation  Mt NMVOC  0.521  0.127  0.447  ‐0.001  1.09 
Particulate matter formation  kt PM10 eq  263  37.4  260  ‐8.36  552.29 
235
Ionising radiation  Mt  U eq  79.9  1.20  114  ‐6.04  189.32 
Terrestrial acidification  kt SO2 eq  851  112  747  ‐27.2  1682 
Human toxicity  Mt 1.4‐DB eq  12.5  0.443  63.5  ‐0.568  75.81 
Terrestrial ecotoxicity  kt 1.4‐DB eq  943  1.91  144  ‐0.983  1090 
Freshwater ecotoxicity  Mt 1.4‐DB eq  1.68  0.0124  5.64  ‐0.00713 7.58 
Marine ecotoxicity  Mt 1.4‐DB eq  0.376  0.0232  1.28  ‐0.0118  1.67 
Metal depletion  Mt Fe eq  10.9  0.213  21.9  ‐0.374  32.67 
Fossil depletion  Mt oil eq  73.0  7.21  57.0  ‐2.48  134.76 
3
Water depletion  Billion m   5.77  0.0376  8.57  ‐0.0600  14.32 
Freshwater eutrophication  kt P eq  49.5  0.109  7.94  ‐0.104  57.45  
Marine eutrophication  kt N eq  342  13.9  57.2  8.65  421.82 
Agricultural land occupation  km²  yr  81200  34.7  3720  ‐142  84821 
Urban land occupation  km²  yr  939  89.7  1030  ‐33.2  2030 
Natural land transformation  km²  75.8  10.3  28.1  ‐1.07  113.23 
Human health  1000 DALY  377  39.1  373  ‐11.6  777.39 
Ecosystem diversity  1000 species  yr  5.74  18.2  2.12  ‐0.0544  7.98 
Resource availability  Billion USD  1180  116  918  ‐39.9  2170 

73
Chapter 3

Figure 26 present the share of each life cycle phase over total impacts according to each of the
midpoint and endpoint indicators.

Values expressed as % 
‐20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Climate change ‐2 52 5 45
Ozone depletion 0 56 9 35
Photochemical oxidant formation ‐1 48 12 41
Particulate matter formation ‐2 48 7 47
Ionising radiation ‐3 42 1 60
Terrestrial  acidification ‐2 51 7 44
Human toxicity ‐1 16 1 84
Terrestrial  ecotoxicity 0 87 0 13
Freshwater ecotoxicity 0 23 0 77
Marine ecotoxicity ‐1 22 1 77
Metal depletion ‐1 33 1 67
Fossil depletion ‐2 54 5 42
Water depletion 0 40 0 60
Freshwater eutrophication 0 86 0 14
Marine eutrophication 81 3 14 2
Agricultural land occupation 0 96 04
Urban land occupation ‐2 46 4 51
Natural land transformation ‐1 67 9 25
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life

Figure 26: Environmental impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27 according to the midpoint
indicators of ReCiPe

Values expressed as % 
120

100
27
80 48 42
2 Use
60 5 Transport
5
40 Production
72
48 54
20 End‐of‐life

0 ‐1 ‐1 ‐2

‐20
Human health Ecosystem  Resource 
diversity availability

Figure 27: Environmental impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27 according to the endpoint
indicators of ReCiPe

74
Production and use phases are the main contributors for all the indicators, contributing from 16 % to
96 % (production phase) and from 4 % to 84 % (use phase) to the overall impacts. The contributions
of distribution and end-of-life phases appear less significant, with the latter one being in some case
negative because of credits due to energy and material recovery. Despite the apparent small
contribution of the end-of-life stage, it should be however remarked that this only takes into account
recycling and disposal activities. The reuse of textile products, indeed, was included in the calculation
of the real consumption of textiles, and that a discount was therefore implicitly assigned to the impacts
from the production stage.

The production phase dominates with regard to eutrophication, agricultural land occupation and
natural land transformation. This can be explained by the high share of cotton to produce textiles for
the European market. Cotton (but also other natural fibres from crops) is produced using high amounts
of fertilisers. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, contained in fertilisers, contribute especially to the
impact on eutrophication. The potential impact on land is a straightforward consequence of the cotton
cultivation. Also the other crops contribute to land use and to the use of agrochemicals; nevertheless, a
higher market share is associated with cotton.

With the exception of terrestrial ecotoxicity, most of the toxic emissions affecting human beings and
aquatic ecosystems results associated with the use phase, mainly because of the use of laundry
detergents. Regarding this matter, a specific category of household textiles such as bed, kitchen and
toilet linens and casual clothes (tops, bottoms and underwear) are especially important contributors to
impacts related to human health and biodiversity. It should be noted that these products can be either
relatively heavy and sporadically washed (i.e. linens) or lighter but washed frequently (i.e. tops,
bottoms, underwear); a high number of washing cycles is anyway required in comparison with other
product categories that do not need the same care (e.g. jackets, coats, suits, blankets). The assumptions
on the use phase were gathered from several sources: Marks & Spencer (2002), Ensait (2009), Ediptex
(2007). They reveal that tops, bottoms and underwear are generally washed, dried and ironed more
frequently than other clothes. Energy and water are demanded all along the value chain of each textile
products, which explains a relative balance between production and use phases in categories related to
water depletion and energy consumption (e.g. fossil fuel depletion climate change, ozone depletion,
photochemical oxidant formation and particulate matter formation).

The impact share that is attributable to distribution is relatively low for most of the indicators. The
highest contribution, 12%, is registered for photochemical oxidant formation (i.e. smog formation).
The explanation is fairly straightforward, as vehicles (trucks, ships and planes) release particulate
matter and exhaust gas directly into the atmosphere.

The end-of-life phase includes disposal treatments such as incineration (with and without energy
recovery) and landfilling as well as recycling processes. The end-of-life phase only concerns end
products in the LCA model: losses during fabrication have their own end-of-life scheme and they were
included in the production phase (Section 2.2.1). The environmental impacts of the end-of-life phase
are small compared to the other life cycle phases. Additionally, environmental credits are associated
with recycling and energy recovery schemes, which can lead to negative contributions (see Figures 25
and 26).

With respect to the endpoint indicators, the use phase scores the highest contribution to the damage to
ecosystems as a potential consequence of the significant contribution to freshwater and marine
toxicity. The damage to human health and to resources is instead allocated almost equally between
production and use phases, mainly because of the relatively balanced energy demands, which yield
similar impacts in the indicators related to energy consumption.

A detailed description of the environmental impacts of the production and processing phase,
disaggregated to the individual fibre types and cloth categories, is given in Section 3.2. Similarly, the
use phase is detailed in Section 3.3.

75
Chapter 3

3.2 Focus on the production phase

3.2.1 Breakdown of the environmental impacts by product types

The production phase encompasses raw material production processes, as well as the preparation of
fibres until the manufacture of the final products (see Section 2.2.1). This phase ends when the textile
product is ready to be used. Figure 28 presents the breakdown of the environmental impacts of the
production and processing phase by product types.

Values expressed as % 
Floor coverings
100
Floor cloths, dish cloths,
dusters, etc
Table linen
80
Linen (Kitchen and 
toilet)
60 Curtains, blinds, etc 

Blankets and traveling 
rugs
40 Bed linen

Articles of bedding
20
Scarves, shawls, ties, 
etc.
Gloves
0
Suits and ensembles
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Terrestrial acidification
Particulate matter formation
Climate change

Resource availability
Marine ecotoxicity

Natural land transformation
Metal depletion
Human toxicity
Ionising radiation

Freshwater eutrophication

Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Marine eutrophication
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Photochemical oxidant formation

Agricultural land occupation
Ozone depletion

Fossil depletion
Water depletion

Urban land occupation

Sportswear

Swimwear

Dresses

Bottoms

Jackets

Underwear, nightwear 
and hosiery
Tops
MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Figure 28: Breakdown by product types of the environmental impacts due to the production phase

The significant contributions to all the impacts are due to a few specific clothing categories. The three
top categories are: tops (24–33 %), underwear (8–14 %) and bottoms (17–29 %). This is due to the
fact that these everyday textile products are also the products which are consumed in the highest
quantities in Europe (see Section 1.3). To the contrary, household textile (i.e. bedding, bed linens,
blankets and travelling rugs, curtains, blinds, kitchen and toilet linens, table linens) production does
not much contribute to the total impacts. Similar results are obtained with respect to the endpoint
indicators of the ReCiPe method, where the main categories are: tops (26–29 %), underwear (10–
11 %), bottoms (17–23 %), dresses (5–6 %) and floor coverings (4–10 %).

76
3.2.2 Breakdown of the environmental impacts by fibre types

Figure 29 shows the environmental impact of textile consumption in the EU-27 according to midpoint
and endpoint categories and material.

Values expressed as % 
100
Polyurethane/poly
propylene

80 Feathers

PVC
60

Polypropylene
40
Polyester

20
Acrylic

0 Polyamide

Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication

Resource availability
Ionising radiation

Freshwater ecotoxicity
Terrestrial acidification

Natural land transformation
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Urban land occupation
Human toxicity

Marine ecotoxicity

Agricultural land occupation
Climate change
Ozone depletion

Water depletion

Human health
Particulate matter formation

Ecosystem diversity
Photochemical oxidant formation

Viscose

Flax

Silk

Cotton

Wool
MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Figure 29: Breakdown by material of the environmental impacts due to the production phase

Cotton is the dominating fibre type in terms of environmental impacts (see Figure 29). This is because
cotton fibre is the main fibre type used in textiles (more than one third of the fibre production). In
addition, environmental impacts per kilogram of fibre are higher for cotton than for the other fibres
(see Section 3.2.3).

The main environmental impacts from cotton production are due to the use of high amounts of
fertilisers and pesticides. Insecticides can be released into the ground and the water (through leaching)
and are significant contributors to ecotoxicity. Phosphorus and phosphate compounds from the raw
material production process are responsible for most of the potential freshwater eutrophication
impacts.

The second most significant contribution is generally associated with polyester. This is because
polyester (1 968 kt) is the most consumed fibre type after cotton (3 733 kt) on the European
consumption market for textiles (9 547 kt). As a synthetic fibre, polyester requires large amounts of
energy to be produced. Polyester therefore is an important contributor to energy-related indicators, e.g.
climate change and ionising radiation (nuclear energy is mainly used as electricity). The full life cycle
of 1 kg of polyester fabric is responsible for the release of more than 30 kg CO2 equivalents to the
atmosphere (around 20 kg are associated with cotton). As no agricultural production is needed, the
impacts on ecosystems are lower than for cotton.

77
Chapter 3

Although it only represents 8 % of all fibres in mass (see Section 1.3), viscose also appears as a
relatively high contributor for some impact categories, mainly for categories concerning with land
occupation issues. Viscose is made from sulphate pulp, which is one of the main products from pulp
and paper mills.

3.2.3 Comparison of different fibre types for selected environmental

impact categories

Due to a large variety of fibre types available, it is interesting to compare the impacts of these fibre
types in terms of weight.

Some of the midpoint and endpoint indicators were selected for comparison: climate change, as it is as
a widely accepted and popular indicator; human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity, as they are
indicators which are particularly affected by the compounds being used for the production of natural
fibres; and the three endpoint indicators of ReCiPe.

The assessment focuses on the production of 1 kg of finished woven fabrics. Impacts are broken down
into several phases: raw material production and processing, pre-treatment (only for natural fibres),
sizing, spinning, desizing, warping sizing, fabric formation, finishing, printing and dyeing and the end-
of-life treatment of stitching (a finishing sub-process) and warping.

Since the main contribution to the impacts of the production stage is due to cotton, displaying results
per kg of fibre enhances the understanding as to whether this is due to its high mass share or to higher
impacts per kg. It is however to be noted that the comparison of the fibre types will only give a better
comprehension of the sources of environmental impacts for each fibre type. A direct comparison
between fibre types might not be relevant as they differ in terms of use, quality and functionality. In
addition, the impacts caused by the other life cycle phases (i.e. distribution, use, end-of-life of the
fibre) are not taken into account here.

Polyurethane is only used when mixed with polypropylene for the induction of textile products,
especially for the backing of carpets. It is then not a fibre, nor feathers. PVC (only used in table and
bed linens) is not strictly a ‘fibre’ either, since this material is actually neither woven nor knitted. The
9 fibres considered in the following parts are the fibre types addressed in the baseline scenario:
viscose, flax, silk, wool, cotton, polyester, polyamide, acrylic and polypropylene (see table 1).

The production & processing chain encompasses 10 processes, which are grouped into the following
categories:
 fibre production
o raw material production and processing
o pretreatment
o sizing
 yarn formation
o spinning
o desizing
 fabric formation
o warping
o fabric formation
 finishing phase and end-of-life
o finishing
o printing and dyeing
o end-of-life of production losses.

78
 Climate change (midpoint)
Figure 29 shows the impact on climate change due to the production of one kg of fabric from different
fibre types. Impact on climate change ranges from 14.9 to 35.7 kg CO2 eq/kgfabric (values
corresponding to silk and acrylic, respectively).

 
Values expressed in kg CO2 eq / kg fabric 
0 10 20 30 40 RM prod.& proc.

Viscose Pretreatment
Flax Sizing
Silk Spinning
Wool Desizing
Cotton
Warping sizing
Polyester
Fabric formation
PA6
Acrylic Finishing
Polypropylene Printing and dyeing

Figure 30: Impact on climate change due to the production of fabric from different fibre types

The most substantial impact, 35.7 kg CO2 eq/kg, is generated by acrylic. Acrylic is followed by PA6
(30.9 kg CO2 eq/kg) and polyester (27.2 kg CO2 eq/kg). In general, synthetic fibres show a higher
impact on climate change than natural fibres. This gap would result still higher if end-of-life emissions
were included in the assessment since synthetic fibres are based on fossil feedstock.

Impacts are mainly due to the production of the raw materials but also to the combustion energy
required in the finishing process. The most important processes after these are the formation, printing
and dyeing of the fabric, which requires a high electricity demand. As far as dyeing is concerned, it is
worth mentioning that dye is the next main contributor to the climate change impact after energy.

The finishing process is common to all the fibres. In the case of polyester, polypropylene, polyamide
and acrylic, electricity and gas demand per kg of fabric is 3.9 kWh and 6.3 kWh, respectively. The
loss rate is also the same for all of these fibre types. This is why synthetic fibres all have the same
share of impacts allocable to finishing. Every other fibre considered in the model requires different
amounts of energy in the finishing process.

Pre-treatment is only needed by cotton (scouring), wool and flax (bleaching) with the aim to remove
matters and add-ons that could remain on the fibre during its growth (pesticides, colour, etc.). This
process, requiring natural gas as input, can contribute significantly to the overall impact, as in the case
of flax.

 Human toxicity (midpoint)

Figure 31 shows the impact on human toxicity due to the production of one kg of fabric from different
fibre types. Impacts range from 0.39 (silk) to 0.99 (acrylic) kg 1.4-DB eq/kg of fabric.

79
Chapter 3

Values expressed, in kg 1.4‐DB eq/kg fabric 

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 RM prod.& proc.

Viscose Pretreatment
Flax Sizing
Silk Spinning
Wool Desizing
Cotton
Warping sizing
Polyester
Fabric formation
PA6
Acrylic Finishing
Polypropylene Printing and dyeing

Figure 31: Impact on human toxicity due to the production of fabric from different fibre types

Acrylic is the fibre type that creates the greatest impact in terms of human toxicity, with 0.99 kg 1.4-
DB eq/kg of fabric. Viscose and flax are the next two fibre types in terms of human toxicity potential
per kg of fabric with 0.82 kg 1.4-DB eq/kg of fabric and 0.80 kg-DB eq/kg of fabric, respectively.

Finishing processes are the main contributors in the pathways leading to the production of synthetic
fibres. The contribution of finishing and fabric formation is also significant in all the fibre types. The
high requests of electricity are indeed responsible for high potential impact in terms of human toxicity
due to the release of arsenic into the air. Emissions of arsenic are associated with the production of the
copper wires used for the distribution of electricity.

Special attention is to be paid to wool and silk. Raw material production and processing is the most
demanding step in the wool fabric production chain. This is due to a high level of material losses
coupled with a high demand of energy and animal feed (the two main contributors for this process).
With reference to silk, it is instead important to remark that the inclusion of the raw material
production in the model has been not possible, so that the contribution due to this step is not
quantifiable.

 Freshwater ecotoxicity (midpoint)

Figure 32 shows the impact on freshwater ecotoxicity due to the production of one kg of fabric from
different fibre types. Impacts range from 15.7 (silk) to 360 (cotton) g 1.4-DB eq/kg.

The fibre type which creates the highest impact in terms of freshwater ecotoxicity is cotton, with 0.36
1.4-DB eq/kg of fabric. Cotton is followed by acrylic and polyamide, with 85 and 50 g 1.4-DB eq/kg
of fabric, respectively.

The impact due to the production of 1 kg of cotton fabric is significantly higher compared to the other
fibre types because of the high amount of fertilisers and agrochemicals used during the agricultural
production. It should be however remarked that, while the life cycle inventory is very detailed for
cotton, a lower level of detail was available for flax and hemp. Only generic agrochemicals have been
used in the modelling of flax and hemp, while some harmful chemicals are included in the exhaustive
LCI set found for cotton

80
 values expressed in kg 1.4‐DB eq/kg fabric 

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 RM prod.& proc.

Viscose Pretreatment
Flax Sizing
Silk Spinning
Wool Desizing
Cotton
Warping sizing
Polyester
Fabric formation
PA6
Acrylic Finishing
Polypropylene Printing and dyeing

Figure 32: Impact on freshwater ecotoxicity due to the production of fabric from different fibre types

Relatively high impacts on freshwater ecotoxicity are also associated with acrylic and polyamide. This
is in particular due to the raw material fabrication process, which releases substantial amounts of
phosphorus directly into aquatic media.

Substantial amounts of dye are used in the production of fabrics from viscose and acrylic. These two
fibre types then have a visible share of the impact on freshwater ecotoxicity allocated to the dyeing
process.

 Human health (endpoint)

Figure 33 shows the impact on human health due to the production of one kg of fabric from different
fibre types. Impacts range from 0.026 (silk) to 0.063 (acrylic) DALY/t.

Acrylic is the fibre which creates the highest impact on human health, with 0.063 DALY/t. Polyamide
comes next, with 0.053 DALY/t, followed by flax, with 0.045 DALY/t.

On a general basis, synthetic fibres are worse than natural ones. The raw material production and the
finishing process are of particular concern in this category. Fabric formation and finishing are energy-
consuming processes. Energy inputs have high impacts on human health, mainly due to the
combustion of fossil resources, which releases particles and other harmful substances and greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere.

Silk still has the lowest impact, also because the raw material production step has not been modelled,
due to a lack of relevant data.

81
Chapter 3

Values expressed in DALY/t fabric 

RM prod.& proc.
Pretreatment
Viscose Sizing
Flax
Spinning
Silk
Wool Desizing
Cotton Warping sizing
Polyester Fabric formation
PA6
Finishing
Acrylic
Printing and dyeing
Polypropylene

Figure 33: Impact on human health due to the production of fabric from different fibre types

 Ecosystem diversity (endpoint)

Figure 34 shows the impact on ecosystem diversity due to the production of one kg of fabric from
different fibre types. Impacts range from 2.5 × 10-7 (wool) to 1.56 × 10-6 (viscose) species/yr/kg. More
information about this indicator is available in the glossary (see Annex 4).

Of all the fibre types, viscose dominates with respect to the ecosystem diversity impact, with 1.6 × 10-6
species*yr/kg of fabric, followed by flax and cotton, with 6.8 × 10-7 and 6.6 × 10-7 species*yr/kg,
respectively.

The finishing phase is responsible for a substantial share of impact for most of the fibre types,
especially for viscose. The viscose finishing phase embodies many sub-processes (e.g. softening,
streaming, fabric washing, water finishing, soaping) which are not necessarily energy demanding but
which require soaps and softeners. The fatty alcohol sulfonate is for instance an oil-based product
which is used in the fabric washing sub-process and which significantly contributes to tropical land
transformation.

Concerning the raw material production phase, it can be observed that this step is particularly
important for viscose- and cotton-based fabrics. Viscose requires sulphate pulp, which is a product of
pulp and paper mills and thus has an impact on forests and ecosystem diversity. Cotton is a vegetable
fibre and a substantial share of the impact is instead associated with the demand of land, which also
applies, more in general, to the other fibre types of natural origin.

82
 Values expressed in species/yr/kg fabric 

0.0E+00 5.0E‐07 1.0E‐06 1.5E‐06 RM prod.& proc.

Viscose Pretreatment
Flax Sizing
Silk Spinning
Wool Desizing
Cotton
Warping sizing
Polyester
Fabric formation
PA6
Acrylic Finishing
Polypropylene Printing and dyeing

Figure 34: Impact on ecosystem diversity due to the production of fabric from different fibre types

 Resource availability (endpoint)

Figure 35 presents the impact on resource availability due to the production of one kg of fabric from
different fibre types. Impacts range from USD 92 (silk) to 193 (acrylic), expressed as external costs
per kg of fabric.

Values expressed in USD/kg fabric 

0 50 100 150 200 RM prod.& proc.

Viscose Pretreatment
Flax Sizing
Silk Spinning
Wool Desizing
Cotton
Warping sizing
Polyester
Fabric formation
PA6
Acrylic Finishing
Polypropylene Printing and dyeing

Figure 35: Impact on resource availability due to the production of fabric from different fibre types

Acrylic is the fibre type which creates the highest impact with respect to resource availability, with
USD 193 per kg of fabric. Acrylic and polypropylene follow in terms of impact per kg of fabric with
USD 160 and 156, respectively. It is possible to observe from the graph that substantial amounts of
resources are demanded during the raw material production as well as the processing and the finishing
of the fabric. Higher impacts are generally associated with synthetic fibres because they more
intensively contribute to the depletion of fossil resource than fibres based on renewable-material-based
materials. Silk and wool, which are from animal origin, have the lowest impact per kg of fabric.

83
Chapter 3

3.3 Focus on the use phase

3.3.1 Environmental impacts of the use phase depending on the textile
category

The environmental impacts of the use phase have been broken down by textile category in Figure 36,
from which it is possible to observe that tops (25-28 %), underwear (12-21 %) and bottoms (28-31 %)
are the most significant contributors. Compared to the production phase (see Figure 29), the
contribution of these products is more pronounced for the use phase. This is basically due to two
reasons: they have the highest market share in Europe in terms of quantity and they are used more than
other clothes (see Section 3.1).

Interestingly, a substantial share of the impacts is also associated with bed linens, especially with
reference to freshwater eutrophication and natural land transformation. Bed linens are indeed an
important household textile category, composed of products which are washed, dried and ironed on a
regular basis. Kitchen, toilet linens and curtains, which also are washed quite frequently, follows bed
linens in importance.

100 Floor coverings
Floor cloths, dish cloths, dusters, etc
80 Table linen
Linen (Kitchen and toilet)
60 Curtains, blinds, etc 
Blankets and traveling rugs
40
Bed linen
Articles of bedding
20
Scarves, shawls, ties, etc.
Gloves
0
Suits and ensembles
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Terrestrial acidification
Particulate matter formation
Climate change

Resource availability
Marine ecotoxicity

Natural land transformation
Metal depletion
Human toxicity
Ionising radiation

Human health
Freshwater eutrophication

Ecosystem diversity
Photochemical oxidant formation

Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication

Agricultural land occupation
Ozone depletion

Fossil depletion

Water depletion

Urban land occupation

Sportswear
Swimwear
Dresses
Bottoms
Jackets
Underwear, nightwear and hosiery
Tops
MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Figure 36: Impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27, for the use phase, broken down by textile
category

3.3.2 Environmental impacts of the use phase depending on the process

The use phase encompasses four processes which are easily distinguishable: washing (excluding
detergent use), detergent use during washing (including emissions to water), tumble drying and
ironing (see Section 2.2.3). Figure 37 presents a breakdown of the potential impacts of the use phase
based on the four processes previously identified.

84
 100

80

60

40

20 Detergent
Drying
0 Ironing

Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Terrestrial acidification
Particulate matter formation
Climate change

Resource availability
Marine ecotoxicity

Natural land transformation
Metal depletion

Human health
Human toxicity
Ionising radiation

Freshwater eutrophication

Marine eutrophication

Ecosystem diversity
Photochemical oxidant formation

Freshwater ecotoxicity

Agricultural land occupation
Ozone depletion

Fossil depletion

Water depletion

Urban land occupation
Washing

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Figure 37: Impacts of the use phase of textile consumption in the EU-27, for the use phase, broken down
by process

The four processes contribute almost equally to the environmental impacts, with the exception of the
indicators related to toxicity, metal depletion, and freshwater eutrophication. With respect to these
indicators, the detergent use clearly dominates the impacts. Detergent fabrication requires sodium
compounds, as well as surfactants, which are potentially harmful for human health, water and
terrestrial ecosystems. Another exception is the water depletion indicator. As a highly water-
consuming process, washing is of course responsible for the largest contribution in this impact
category.

85
 Chapter 4

4 IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL OF THE EU-27 TEXTILES MARKET

4.1 Introduction and Methodology

To identify the improvement potential of the textile market in EU-27, improvement options were
identified. A list of options was set-up further to a literature review and a consultation of experts. The
number of options was reduced based on the following criteria:
 relevance in the context of IPP
 size of the environmental improvement potential
 coverage of the existing technical potential by the existing legislation
 availability and reliability of data to quantify the environmental impacts.

After the screening, 13 improvement options were selected and the improvement potential assessed for
each of them (see 4.2). For the majority of options, the improvement potential was calculated on the
basis of the textile LCA model. For one option (i.e. fibre blending), the improvement potential was
instead quantified by carrying out further case studies as data in this case were limited to only a few or
very specific fibre types. Changes in the methodological approach were thus necessary.

4.2 Preliminary technology and options review

In total, 52 options have been identified, including:
 35 for the production phase
 3 for the distribution phase
 9 for the use phase
 5 for the end-of-life phase.

The following tables (Table 38 to table 41) list the improvement options identified during the
preliminary review and present an assessment of each option: environmental benefits which can be
potentially gained with the option, availability of information, time horizon necessary to implement
the option, final decision about the inclusion or exclusion of the option.

Table 38: Preliminary list of improvement options for the production and processing phase

Data 
Time 
Option  Environmental benefit  availability  Decision (3) 
horizon (2) 
(1) 

Reduction of pesticide 
Reduce 
and fertiliser use could 
agrochemical use in  +  ST   
result in easing of impacts 
cotton production 
on aquatic systems 
Flax and hemp crops are 
Replace cotton with  less reliant on 
alternative natural  agrochemical use in  +  ST   
fibres  comparison with cotton 
crops. 
Reduce fibre  Potentially reduces 
blending to  impacts of disposal where  o  ST   
facilitate recycling  landfilling is avoided 
Reduce  Reduced raw materials 
consumption of  consumption and effluent  o  ST   
sizing chemicals  treatment 

87
Chapter 4

Data 
Time 
Option  Environmental benefit  availability  Decision (3) 
horizon (2) 
(1) 

Use alternative  Potential reduction in 
knitting  energy consumption and  +  ST   
technologies  fabric waste production 
Overall slight reduction of 
Replace chemicals  impacts, up to 1 % of 
+  LT   
with enzymes  savings for metal 
depletion 
Exclude toxic agents  Overall reduction of 
during production  impacts to human health  o  LT   
steps  and ecosystem quality 
Recycle or reuse 
Reduced water and 
water during  o  ST   
energy consumption 
processing steps 
Replace bleaching, 
Reduced water and 
rinsing and washing  o  LT   
energy consumption 
technologies 
Recycle effluent  Reduced water 
o  LT   
water  consumption 
Use low liquor ratio  Reduced energy, steam 
o  ST   
dyeing machines  and water consumption 
Recover fabric 
Reduced amount of waste 
waste during  o  ST   
disposed of 
production 
Replacing sheep dip 
chemicals with less toxic  Excluded  due  to  lack  of  data  on 
For wool fibre 
alternatives may reduce  sheep  dipping  pesticide 
production, replace  –  ST 
impacts on aquatic  alternatives rendering this option 
sheep dip chemicals 
systems and human  difficult to quantify 
toxicity 
Excluded  because  data  collected 
in  the  model  does  not  specify 
whether  lanolin  reuse  is 
considered,  and  further, 
For wool fibre  Reusing lanolin could 
inventory  data  for  this  substance 
production, reuse  offset some of the  –  ST 
were  unavailable.  Moreover,  as 
Lanolin  impacts of disposal 
lanolin  is  an  expensive  by‐
product, reusing  it  is  already  a 
current  practice  according  to 
textile experts 
This  option  will  not  be  assessed 
Replace crude oil‐
Reduced crude oil  further  as  little  reliable  and 
based synthetic 
consumption and may  specific  data  are  available  due  to 
fibres with bio‐ o  LT 
have other overall  industrial  confidentiality  hence 
sourced synthetic 
environmental benefits  making  this  option  difficult  to 
fibres 
assess accurately 
This  option  will  not  be  included 
Horizontal washers 
Reduced water  because  data  do  not  allow  for 
versus vertical  –  ST 
consumption  differentiating  between  different 
washers 
types of washers 
Excluded  because  it  would  be 
Continuous versus  difficult  to  determine  how  these 
Reduced water and 
non‐continuous  –  ST  two  techniques  would  differ  in 
chemical consumption 
dyeing  terms  of  raw  materials 
consumption 

88
 Chapter 4

Data 
Time 
Option  Environmental benefit  availability  Decision (3) 
horizon (2) 
(1) 

Consider processes  Elimination of hazardous 
Option will not be assessed 
which are in  chemicals which could 
–  LT  further because data are not 
concordance with  result in an overall 
readily available 
REACH  reduction of impacts 
Consider digital 
Excluded because data were not 
instead of pigment  Overall reduction of 
–  LT  available to quantify the 
or traditional  impacts 
improvement potential 
printing 
Reduced chemical use and 
Consider pulsating 
overall reduction of  –  ST   
rinse technology 
impacts 
Used in conjunction with 
Consider ultrasonic  other techniques such as  Excluded because data were not 
treatments and  enzyme replacement;  –  ST  available to quantify the 
ozonation  could result in overall  improvement potential 
reduction of impacts 
Replacement of 
environmentally harmful 
Employ  Excluded because data were not 
chemical reducing agents, 
electrochemical  –  LT  available to quantify the 
reduction in water 
dyeing  improvement potential 
consumption and 
significant BOD reduction
Eliminates water 
consumption and 
therefore effluent 
Excluded because data were not 
Employ plasma  treatment is not 
–  +LT  available to quantify the 
technology  necessary. Also 
improvement potential 
significantly reduces need 
for certain processing 
chemicals 
Reduced or completely 
Excluded because data were not 
Use of supercritical  eliminated water 
–  LT  available to quantify the 
CO2 for dyeing  consumption for dyeing 
improvement potential 
step 
Favour low impact 
Excluded because data were not 
textile production  Overall reduction of 
–  LT  available to quantify the 
where use phase  impacts 
improvement potential 
impacts are high 
Reduced impacts brought  Excluded because data were not 
Apply easy care 
about during the use  –  LT  available to quantify the 
treatments 
phase  improvement potential 
Quality control for  Reduction of waste  Excluded because data were not 
raw materials  generated during  –  ST  available to quantify the 
before finishing  processing stages  improvement potential 
Improve yarn  Excluded because data were not 
quality to increase  Reduced need for disposal –  ST  available to quantify the 
lifetime  improvement potential 
Excluded because data were not 
Increase tolerance  Less fading, resulting in 
–  ST  available to quantify the 
for colour changes  longer product lifetime 
improvement potential 
Reduce energy use  Excluded because data were not 
Reduced energy 
or recycle calorific  –  ST  available to quantify the 
consumption 
energy  improvement potential 

89
Chapter 4

Data 
Time 
Option  Environmental benefit  availability  Decision (3) 
horizon (2) 
(1) 

Combine processes  Excluded because data were not 
Reduced water and 
(e.g. bleaching and  –  ST  available to quantify the 
energy consumption 
scouring)  improvement potential 
Excluded because data were not 
Consider cold pad  Reduced energy 
–  +ST  available to quantify the 
batch dyeing  consumption 
improvement potential 
Excluded because data were not 
Improve machine  Overall reduction of 
–  +ST  available to quantify the 
maintenance  impacts 
improvement potential 
Use automated  Prevention of excess  Excluded because data were not 
chemical dosing  chemical use or inefficient  –  +ST  available to quantify the 
systems  application  improvement potential 
Prevention of excess  Excluded because data were not 
Use dye machine 
chemical use or inefficient  –  +ST  available to quantify the 
controllers 
application  improvement potential 
Use on‐line  Better control of  Excluded because data were not 
monitoring or fuzzy  materials and energy  –  LT  available to quantify the 
logic  consumption  improvement potential 
(1) + = many data / o = little data / – = no data. 
(2) +ST = Very short term / ST = Short term / LT = Long term / +LT = Very long term. 
(3)  = included. 

Table 39: Preliminary list of improvement options for the distribution phase

Data 
Time 
Option  Environmental benefit  availability  Decision (3) 
horizon (2) 
(1) 

Adjust the partition  Reduced overall impacts 
of distribution  related to transportation, 
–  LT   
methods for  in particular CO2 
imported textile  emissions 
The  percentage  of  unsold 
products  can  vary  greatly 
Reduce the 
depending  on  market  conditions, 
percentage of  Reduced waste 
–  LT/+LT  seasons  and  popularity  of  stores 
unsold or returned  generation 
they come from. As no data were 
products 
available,  this  option  has  been 
excluded 
This  option  will  not  be 
Reduce the  Reduced raw materials  investigated further. Packaging of 
packaging and  consumption and waste  –  ST  products  and  advertisement  has 
paper advertising  generation  not  been  included  in  the  base 
case model 
( ) + = many data / o = little data / – = no data. 
(2) +ST = Very short term / ST = Short term / LT = Long term / +LT = Very long term. 
(3)  = included.   

90
 Chapter 4

Table 40: Preliminary list of improvement options for the use phase

Data 
Time 
Option  Environmental benefit  availability  Decision (3) 
horizon (2) 
(1) 

Reduce number of 
Reduced detergent, 
washes through 
energy and water  o  LT   
better loading of 
consumption 
the appliances 
Avoid or reduce  LT 
Reduced energy 
tumble drying  o   
consumption 
frequency 
Use energy efficient  LT 
washing machines,  Reduced energy 
+   
tumble dryers and  consumption 
irons 
Wash at lower  Reduced energy 
–  LT   
temperatures   consumption 
Lack  of  data  means  this  option 
Reduced impacts of 
Use eco‐friendly  cannot  be  quantified.  It  has 
detergent use (e.g. lower  –  LT 
washing detergents  therefore  been  excluded  from 
BOD and COD) 
further analysis 
The production phase cannot be 
quantified  as  it  is  difficult  to 
determine  the  changes  in 
Longer  product  lifetime 
Buy more durable  production  and  processing 
and,  therefore,  reduction 
garments and  –  LT  inputs  that  would  increase 
in  textile  waste 
textiles  product  lifetime  and  to  model 
generation 
phenomenon  of  fast  fashion 
reducing  the  potential  lifetime 
of clothes 
This  is  dealt  with,  to  an  extent, 
during  the  production  phase, 
where  certain  fibres  replace 
Promote purchase  high  impacting  fibres.  However, 
Reduction of overall 
of eco‐friendly  –  LT  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  the  use 
impacts 
textiles  phase  differences  as  little 
information  is  available  on  the 
washing  and  drying  needs  of 
eco‐friendly textiles 
Data  pertaining  to  the  market 
Prevents individual  share  of  clothes  leasing  are  not 
purchase, and therefore  available,  therefore  it  is  not 
Lease clothes  –  LT 
results in an overall  possible  to  quantify  how  much 
reduction of impacts  the  consumption  of  clothing 
products would be reduced by 
This  is  dealt  with,  to  an  extent, 
Longer product lifetime 
Extend the life of  increasing  the  reuse  during  the 
and, therefore, reduction 
clothing and textiles  –  ST  end‐of‐life  phase  because  the 
in textile waste 
through repairs  impacts  of  repairs  (e.g.  sewing) 
generation 
are difficult to be quantified 
(1) + = many data / o = little data / – = no data. 
(2) +ST = Very short term / ST = Short term / LT = Long term / +LT = Very long term. 
(3)  = included.   

91
Chapter 4

Table 41: Preliminary list of improvement options for the end-of-life phase

Data 
Time 
Option  Environmental benefit  availability  Decision (3) 
horizon (2) 
(1) 

Promote textile 
recycling, reuse and 
second‐hand  Reduction of textile waste 
O  +LT   
purchase by  generated 
increasing 
collection 
It is uncertain what the impact of 
Develop textile  these technologies will be and by 
Reduction of textile waste 
recovery  –  LT  how  much  they  will  be  able  to 
generated 
technologies   increase  the  recovery  of  textiles 
waste 
As  fibre  blends  are  not  directly 
accounted  for  in  the  model,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  determine 
Develop recycling 
Reduction of textile waste  the  effects  of  introducing  this 
methods for fibre  –  ST 
generated  technology.  As  it  is  not  yet 
blends 
available,  it  is  also  difficult  to 
determine the impact of the use 
of this technology 
Melting or 
depolymerisation of 
recycled fibres of  Reduction of textile waste  It  is  difficult  to  quantify  the 
0  ST 
polyester or  generated  impacts of using this technology. 
product into 
filaments 
Fibre  blends  have  not  been 
Encourage 
modelled  in  the  base  case:  the 
production of 
model  only  includes  100 % 
100 % synthetic  Reduction of textile waste 
–  LT  synthetic  fibres  and  therefore 
textiles (no fibre  generated 
the  reduction  of  fibre  blends 
blend) for easier 
cannot  be  quantified  for  the 
recycling  
entire market 
(1) + = many data / o = little data / – = no data. 
(2) +ST = Very short term / ST = Short term / LT = Long term / +LT = Very long term. 
(3)  = included.   

All in all, 13 improvement options were selected:

 production and processing phase
1. reducing agrochemical use
2. developing easy-to-grow crop cultivations by replacing cotton with hemp or flax
3. reducing consumption of sizing chemicals
4. replacing chemicals with enzymes
5. using alternative knitting techniques (e.g. fully-fashioned knitting or integral knitting)
6. using dye controllers and low liquor ratio dyeing machines
7. water recycling

92
 Chapter 4

 distribution phase
8. reducing air freight
 use phase:
9. reducing washing temperature
10. reducing tumble drying
11. optimising the load of appliances
12. improvement of washing/drying appliances efficiency
 end-of-life phase
13. promotion of reuse and recycling
In addition, an analysis of fibre blending and its potential improvement potential is presented in this
section. This case study is slightly different as it focuses on only one product (T-shirts) and implied
some changes in the methodological approach. Thus, the results from this analysis cannot be compared
with the other improvement options.

4.3 Improvement options for the production and processing

phase
In total, 7 improvement options were assessed for the production and processing phase. They can be
gathered into four categories:

 alternative agricultural practices

1. reducing agrochemical use
2. developing easy-to-grow crop cultivations by replacing cotton with hemp or flax
 alternative chemicals:
3. reducing sizing chemicals
4. replacing chemicals with enzymes
 alternative knitting techniques
5. using alternative knitting techniques (e.g. fully-fashioned knitting or integral knitting)
 reducing water use
6. using dye controllers and low liquor ratio dyeing machines
7. water recycling.

For each option and indicator of ReCiPe, improvement potentials are showed with reference to the
baseline scenario. A more detailed analysis of the single options is carried out with reference to a
selected set of indicators (climate change and the 3 endpoint indicators of ReCiPe are always shown, 4
further indicators are sometimes added in order to ease the understanding of the analysis).

4.3.1 Reducing agrochemical use

4.3.1.1 Context

Agrochemicals play an important part in the cultivation of crops for natural fibre production. Cotton in
particular has received much attention over the last two decades (Khan et al., 2002). In particular,
pesticides use in cotton cultivation has been associated with impacts on the health of workers and
surrounding populations, environmental problems, pest resistance, and other indirect impacts. Crops
such as cotton are often susceptible to insect pests which infect crops and significantly reduce yield.
However, more recently, studies are beginning to show that it is in fact the improper application of
pesticides that has led to an increase in pest resistance. In addition, the reduction of crop yields due to
resistance might induce farmers to increase the intensity and frequency of crop spraying. A study

93
Chapter 4

carried out in Pakistan has shown that although cotton crop yields had decreased slightly over the last
decade, pesticide use has tripled (Khan et al., 2002).

As a result of the problems related to cotton cultivation, alternatives such as genetically modified
(GM) crop cultivation are coming to the fore (Transgen, 2007). Since the beginnings of its
development in the 1990s, GM cotton has received much attention due to the controversy surrounding
the genetic modification of living organisms, though more related to food crops. This is clearly visible
through the apparition of anti-GMO associations and websites such as ‘Say no to GMOs’(1).
Following its introduction, GM cotton has had some success, not only in reducing the pesticide load,
but also in increasing yields and reducing costs. In countries such as China or India, GM cotton
cultivation is becoming more and more widespread (Transgen, 2007). Bt cotton and herbicide-tolerant
cotton are the two main types of GM cotton plants currently grown, although new strains are
constantly being developed.

Another growing trend is the growth of organic cotton crops due to increasing sustainability
consciousness (Martins & Vascouto, 2007). Unlike conventional and GM cotton, organic cotton crops
use no pesticides at all. Organic cotton does have some benefits for the environment with respect to
toxicity issues, however, it also comes with some disadvantages, in particular, crop yields might be
lower (Swezey et al., 2007).

4.3.1.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

The parameters related to yields and agrochemical consumption were changed to quantify the effects
of changing the crop type from conventional to organic or GM. Table 42 shows which specific values
were used.

In the literature, there is some controversy with respect to the yields of GM crops. Some studies
showed a significant increase in crop yield (Qaim, 2003), while others showed that yield tends to
decrease over time. A 2002 study of Bt cotton in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh found a
35 % reduction in the total yield of Bt cotton (ISIS, 2005). In this study, a moderate increase of yields
was assumed.

Table 42: Parameters considered for the cotton cultivation scenarios

Yield  Pesticide use  Fertiliser use 

Cultivation type 
Ratio  kg/ha  Ratio  Ratio 

Conventional 
1  775  1  1 
cotton 

Organic cotton  0.82  635.5  0  1 

GM cotton  1.24  961  0.5  1 

Cotton cultivation is composed of seven processes. The LCI of these processes were adjusted
according to the parameters considered for the different types of cultivation. The scaling factors used
to adjust the LCI are shown in table 43.

(1) Available at http://www.saynotogmos.org/

94
 Chapter 4

Table 43: Scaling parameters for the life cycle inventories

Process 
Scaling factor 
 (referred to one kg of fibre) 

Transport from field to barn(t*km)  1 

Provision and application of pesticides (kg)  pesticide use ratio / yield variation 

Irrigation (kg)  1 / yield variation 

Provision and application of fertilisers (kg)  1 / yield variation 

Mulching (ha) 

Sowing (ha) 

Chiselling (ha) 

Harrowing (rotary harrow, ha) 
Agricultural 
1 / yield variation 
processes 
Harrowing (spring tine harrow, ha) 

Fertilising (ha) 

Combine harvesting (ha) 

Baling (ha) 

Provision and sewing of seeds (kg)  1 / yield variation 

CO2 (kg)  1 / yield variation 
Direct 
emissions 
Others (kg)  pesticide use ratio / yield variation / 2 
(*) the ½ factor assumes that half of the emissions are allocable to pesticides and half to fertilisers. 

 Results
Figure 38 shows how the overall life cycle impacts changes further to the assumptions considered for
organic cotton and GM cotton.

Agricultural land occupation is increased in case of organic cotton. This is directly related to the
reduction of yield which is the main drawback of organic cotton. However, total ecotoxicity impacts
are reduced significantly by organic cotton. Compared to conventional cotton, organic cotton is
favourable also in the 'eutrophication' impact category. The main reason why these indicators show
significant impact reductions is the reduction of pesticide use.

No trade-offs are instead associated with GM cotton. GM cotton requires fewer pesticides than a
conventional crop but still more than organic crops. However, as GM cotton is produced at a higher
yield, impacts on a mass basis are notably lowered. 'Eutrophication', 'terrestrial ecotoxicity' and 'land
occupation' are the impact categories that are more sensitive to the cultivation shift.

For all other impact categories, there is little difference between the cotton types. This is due to the
fact that the material production and the agricultural processing phases are contributing to, roughly,
half of life cycle impacts. Variations are mainly associated with the combustion of fossil fuels in
tractors which has been assumed to be proportional only to the yield (smaller change if compared to
the change in pesticide use).

95
Chapter 4

However, it should be noted that the previous results are valid only under the assumptions considered
in the assessment. Not all benefits and potential drawbacks of GMO from a broader point of view were
indeed included. For instance, GMO crops may transmit seeds to other crops, a concern which is not
specific to cotton (Hoyle, 2007). Genetically modified organisms are relatively recent on the majority
of markets (food, energy crops, etc.) and all the risks (principally long-term risks) for human health
and biodiversity have not been assessed yet.

Values expressed in % and in comparison with the baseline scenario 

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

15 Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Freshwater ecotoxicity

Urban land occupation
Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
20
10

2
2
1

1
1

1
1

0
0
0

0
‐10
0

0
‐1
‐1

‐1

‐1

0
0

‐1
‐1

‐1
‐1

‐2

‐2
‐2

‐4
‐8
‐8

‐20
‐12

‐13
‐15
‐16

‐30
‐25

‐40
‐50
‐45

‐60
‐70
‐80
‐75

Organic cotton GM cotton

Figure 38: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from different cotton types

4.3.1.3 Barriers and opportunities

Conventional cotton crops depend on the use of agrochemicals. Thus, alternative crops are becoming
an increasingly attractive alternative (Kant, 2007). Although seemingly an expensive option, GM
cotton has experienced a dramatic increase in cultivation since its introduction, augmenting in global
production by approximately 44 % from 2002 to 2005 (see table 44). Transgenic crops offer the
benefit of increased yields and lower costs due to the reduced application of agrochemicals (Anderson
et al., 2006).

Table 44: Global uptake of cotton transgenic crops between 2002 and 2005

2002  2003  2004  2005 

Global area of GM cotton crops 
6.8  7.2  9.0  9.8 
(million hectare) 
Source: Anderson et al., 2006 

96
 Chapter 4

A recent World Bank study has estimated that welfare gains from the increased adoption of GM cotton
could be higher than 20 % of total global GDP welfare gain in some developing countries (see Figure
39). The global benefit in monetary terms has been estimated at USD 2.3 billion (Anderson et al.,
2006).

Source: Anderson et al., 2006 
Figure 39: Welfare gain from GM cotton as a percentage of total world GDP welfare gain

With these estimated yield increases, it seems that GM cotton might be an economical replacement for
conventional cotton crops. However, one issue that has come to light in recent years is the decrease in
marginal returns from GM crop cultivation due to stagnating or even decreasing yields in the long run
(Eyhorn et al., 2007). Pest resistance to some GM crop defences (such as those in Bt cotton crops) is
also a concern, however, and some cases have already been confirmed (1). The cultivation of organic
cotton is also increasing, however, at a lower level than the cultivation of GM cotton. In a two-year
comparative study in central India, covering 170 fields, it was shown that production costs could be
lowered by 10–20 %, and a 20 % organic price premium could be achieved when compared with
conventional cotton crops (International Trade Centre, 2007). This translates to an income increase of
10–20 % for organic cotton growers (International Trade Centre, 2007).

Although organic cotton cultivation has seen some growth in the past years (see Figure 40), its uptake
has been relatively modest and relatively insignificant in comparison with global cotton production
(Baffes, 2004). Some important barriers hinder organic cotton cultivation. Certification and
monitoring of organic crop cultivation is a costly procedure, which may ultimately offset the economic
benefits due to less use of chemicals and higher returns from organic crop sales. It is also challenging
to persuade consumers to opt for organic cotton items. Concerns over brand, style, colour, quality, care
instructions and size may have a greater influence on consumer choice than ecological issues. More
importantly, the price of products has a significant effect on consumer decisions. In an age of fast
fashion, many companies are competing on price factors only by reducing production costs or
balancing out product quality. Whereas organic food attracts consumers due to health as well as ethical
benefits, the ethical incentives of organic cotton may not be enough to persuade consumers to switch.

(1) ‘First documented case of pest resistance to biotech cotton.’ PHYSorg.com. 7 Feb 2008.
www.physorg.com/news121614449.html

97
Chapter 4

Source: International Trade Centre, 2007 
Figure 40: Global organic cotton production and trade in tonnes of fibres

More recently, larger international textile producers and retailers are increasingly using organic cotton.
Increased consumer awareness and demand has resulted in a niche market for 100 % organic or
blended organic cotton products. Growing consumer awareness of environmental and ethical issues, as
well as growing interest in corporate social responsibility, could lead to an even greater increase in
organic crop production. However, until then, the costs of production, processing and purchase still
remain a major threat to the organic cotton industry.

4.3.2 Alternative crop cultivation

4.3.2.1 Context
Today, cotton is the most popular type of natural plant-based fibre used for textiles (see Ffigure 9).
However, it is becoming increasingly popular to use other plants such as flax, hemp, bamboo, ramie
and soy. Certain properties such as texture, durability and strength, and also user comfort, differ by
fibre type. Thus, replacing cotton fibres with other fibre types might not be feasible in all cases. The
assumptions of this improvement option thus might be more of a hypothetical nature; however, the
scenario will provide a general idea of the impact of switching away from cotton to the use of other
natural fibre types.

4.3.2.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

This improvement option was investigated comparing cotton to flax and to hemp, respectively. In
woven applications, it was assumed that either flax or hemp was used in substitution of cotton. Knitted
cotton fabric was instead considered to be irreplaceable, so that the crop was still present in the
assessment.

The majority of data for early processing steps in the hemp fibre production are unique to this type.
However, later steps, such as yarn production and finishing were based on figures for linen production.
The key assumptions for each fibre type are given in table 45.

98
 Chapter 4

Table 45: Key assumptions for the modelling of flax and hemp cultivation, annual values

Flax  Hemp 
Parameter  Cotton 
Value  Source  Value  Source 

Boutin, et al. 
Yield (kg/ha)  775  1200  BIO (2007a)  7750 
(2005) 

Fertiliser use  Boutin, et al. 
104/56/89  86/146/117  BIO (2007a)  66/29/110 
(kg N/P/K per ha)  (2005) 

2.09  
Pesticide use  Boutin, et al. 
0.0216  (incl. 1.58 kg  BIO (2007a)  9.5 
(kg/ha)  (2005) 
bentazone) 

 Results
Figure 41 shows the results obtained in the life cycle assessment of the ‘alternative crop cultivation’
improvement option.

Midpoint indicators show similar environmental patterns for hemp and flax, whose cultivations could
lead to significant environmental improvements with respect to ecotoxicity, eutrophication and
agricultural land occupation. Pesticides such as aldicarb or cypermethrin, which are used for cotton
cultivation, do not have to be applied in the case of hemp and flax. Flax and hemp also need less
amounts per kg of nitrogen-based fertilisers (see table 45), which are the main contributors to
eutrophication. However, environmental benefits are not registered in all the impact categories
because fabric formation is more energy-demanding than for cotton.

Hemp has a slight advantage compared to flax in all the midpoint impact categories and it scores better
than cotton in all the endpoint indicators while flax does worse. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that
the improvement evaluation scenarios do not consider either the effects of a shift from cotton to flax or
hemp on the distribution and use phases or technical aspects related to hemp production and
processing (e.g. hemp yields short fibres and is much slower to grow).

99
Chapter 4

Mid‐points End‐points

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Freshwater ecotoxicity

Urban land occupation
Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
10 4 5
5 1 1 2 1 1
0 1 0 1 1 0
0
0 ‐1 ‐1 ‐1 0 ‐2 0 ‐1 ‐1 0 0
‐5
‐3
‐1 ‐2 ‐1 ‐1 ‐2 ‐1
‐10 ‐8 ‐7 ‐6
‐8
‐15
‐20 ‐17
‐18
‐25
‐24
‐30
‐31 ‐29
‐35 ‐32 ‐31
Hemp (woven  only) Flax (woven only)

Figure 41: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from cotton substitution

4.3.2.3 Barriers and opportunities

With increasing prices of cotton production (Huang et al., 2003), and concerns for the environment,
some manufacturers are beginning to consider alternative fibre sources for fabric production. This is
especially true for cotton, which, despite its unique qualities, is one of the types of fibres with the
highest potential of producing environmental impacts (see Section 3.2.3). Other natural fibre sources
such as flax, hemp and bamboo are viable alternatives to cotton.

For many years, flax and hemp fibre production in the EU have benefited from agricultural support
subsidies (ADAS, 2005). Recent changes have been introduced however, which have replaced direct
crop-based support payments (Arable Area Payment Scheme or AAPS) with a single payment scheme
(SPS) designed to aid farmers in environmental stewardship (ADAS, 2005). The reduction in crop-
based subsidies could have a dramatic effect on flax and hemp production, depending on the level of
crop yield, production costs and fibre extraction rates. In 2005 it was reported that through decoupling
of support subsidies, flax production suffered a significant loss in gross margin, from approximately
EUR 370 to -6 per hectare (ADAS, 2005). In addition to this, the decoupling of flax and hemp
processing subsidies, as stipulated in EC Regulation 1673/2000, would further reduce the gross margin
to approximately EUR -48 per hectare (ADAS, 2005). Decoupling of funding would provide a level
playing field among global markets, although this could possibly lead to a reduction of flax and hemp
cultivation in the EU. However, it was noted that through technological advances and adequate
management, the gross margins of flax and hemp cultivation could be increased (ADAS, 2005).

There is another challenge in stimulating hemp markets: despite its heritage as one of the oldest fibres
in the world (Liberalato, 2003), hemp remains one of the most controversial fibres for industrial
production. Until recently, heavy restrictions were placed on the commercial production of this crop in

100
 Chapter 4

some countries (1), due to its intrinsic psychoactive properties (2)(3)(4). Industrial grade hemp,
however, can be produced without such properties, thus providing a legal alternative for other natural
fibres. Despite some of its superior properties (such as high durability and strength) and its potentially
lower environmental impact, hemp is an expensive fibre to produce in comparison with other
alternatives. With the advent of cheap and fast fashion, the hemp market has suffered a significant
decrease in production over the last few years (BioRegional, 2004; Vantreese, 2001). Inability to
compete with low-cost producers could threaten the use of hemp in textiles production, although
demand for hemp-based products gradually continues to rise, which should support the growth of this
market in future.

Bamboo, soy or ramie are other fibres presumed to be environmentally friendly. Little information on
the potential benefits of soy and ramie has been found and they represent a limited market share but
bamboo has received some attention recently (Devi et al., 2007). Bamboo fabric is soft and smooth
and the use of bamboo seems also to provide many environmental benefits (Uni-SunTextile, 2007). It
is a fast growing crop which is not heavily reliant on pesticides (Ecotextiles, 2009). It also improves
soil quality due to its extensive root system (Purdew, 2007). Unlike most other natural plant-based
fibres, bamboo does not require replanting as its root system is able to produce new shoots continually.
However, one of the biggest limitations of bamboo-based fibres is the method of converting crop to
fibres. Although bamboo can be processed in the same manner as flax and hemp, the preferred process
is similar to that of viscose fibre extraction, which can also have significant environmental impacts.
The types of dyes and chemicals used in fibre processing can also offset the environmental benefits of
using bamboo fibres. Newly introduced environmentally friendly processing measures might be an
alternative (Ecotextiles, 2009).

4.3.3 Reducing consumption of sizing chemicals

4.3.3.1 Context

Sizing is a centuries old process which can have a considerable impact on the environment (European
Commission, 2003). Sizing recipes contain molecules with high TOC (Total Organic Carbon) content,
which can contribute to water eutrophication during the desizing process and can also be costly if
applied incorrectly.

The sizing of fibres and yarns for weaving is especially important during natural fibre processing.
Sizing chemicals are applied to bind fibres together and stiffen yarn for weaving (Celanese Acetate,
2001) and ultimately reduce breakage. Sizing chemicals can differ depending on which fibres they are
applied to. Typical sizing chemicals include starch, gelatine, oil, wax and polymers. Conversely,
desizing is the process of removing sizing compounds before finishing steps are carried out. The
quality of yarn is greatly increased by the application of sizing chemicals. Yarn quality, however, also
depends on properties of the yarn itself, independent of whether sizing is used or not. These qualities
affect the tensile strength, abrasion resistance, and elongation of yarn during weaving. For example,
abrasion resistance can be raised greatly where sizing is used. However, yarn property also suffers
when the quantity of sizing is too high or too low. Choosing the correct amount of sizing for each
fabric type is a difficult process as a thorough analysis of fibre type and quality is required.

To conclude, the need for sizing depends on the yarn quality, the nature of the fibre and the weaving
loom used. For example, high performance polyester fibres often do not need sizing during the
weaving process because the fibres are resistant enough and should not break during the weaving
process (Sawhney et al., 2008). Decreasing size amount could be achieved by pre-wetting (Sejri et al.,
2008) before sizing and using special sizing box (Asian Textile Journal, 2004). Pre-wetting not only
improves the weaving efficiency, it also increases sizing performance. The use of sizes with less

(1) Arizona Industrial Hemp Council, http://www.azhemp.org/Archive/Package/Countries/countries.html

(2) Vantreese, V.L. Industrial hemp: Global markets and prices, June 1997, http://votehemp.com/PDF/hemp97.pdf
(3) Hemp Industries Association, http://www.thehia.org/facts.html#Countries
(4) The House of Hemp, Agricultural hemp: A solution to creating a diverse rural economy?
http://www.thehouseofhemp.co.uk/hemp.html

101
Chapter 4

environmental impact is another improvement option (Thomas, 1996; Sakharkhar et al., 2003). In
recent years, new technology is being developed which will eliminate the need for sizing chemicals.
Testing was recently carried out on a high speed weaving machine which demonstrated the mechanical
feasibility of producing woven cotton fabric without the need for a sizing application. However, to
achieve this, yarn of very high quality with the highest possible uniformity and consistency is needed
(Sawhney et al., 2005; Sawhney et al., 2007; Sawhney et al., 2006). The last improvement option
consists of the recovery of sizing chemicals (Robinson, 1996).

4.3.3.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

To demonstrate the potential improvements due to removing sizing from the production and
processing phase, the use of sizing chemicals (starch and oil) was set to zero. The scenario thus shows
the maximum potential that can be achieved by this option.

 Results
Figure 42 shows the potential environmental benefits which results from the new scenario, in which
the use of sizing chemicals was completely avoided.

Apart from the impacts on marine eutrophication, which can be reduced by about 8 % if no sizing
chemicals are used, slight environmental improvements seems to be associated with this option. The
benefits mainly come from the avoided use of starch, which was requiring fertilizers in the LCA
model for the potato production process.

4.3.3.3 Barriers and opportunities

The results have shown that a reduction of the amount of sizing used or the removal of the sizing
process is environmentally friendly. With good quality yarn, sizing would be less important (Pahrik et
al., 2006; Sawhney et al., 2006); however in today’s market the tendency is to manufacture with poor
quality yarns which makes sizing necessary (Pahrik et al., 2006). Size recovery is a cost effective
procedure that reduces the environmental impact of sizing (MIGA, 2007) while improving slashing
and weaving performance (ITJ, 2007).

102
 Chapter 4

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0,0

‐0,1 ‐0,1 0,0

‐0,1
‐0,1 ‐0,1
‐0,2 ‐0,2 ‐0,2 ‐0,2
‐0,3 ‐0,3 ‐0,2 ‐0,2
‐0,3 ‐0,3 ‐0,3
‐0,3 ‐0,3
‐0,4 ‐0,4
‐0,4 ‐0,4
‐0,5
‐1,1
‐7,9

Figure 42: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU27 resulting from sizing chemical use
reduction

4.3.4 Replacing chemicals with enzymes

4.3.4.1 Context

Enzymes have a long history of use in the textiles industry, the first enzyme desizing practices being
applied as early as 1912 (Aehle, 2004). Enzymes are proteins and are used to catalyse chemical
reactions. In the textile industry context, they can be used in several processes and replace regular
chemicals. Since the early use of amylases, also for desizing, many other enzymes have been
developed for different processes. Some of the most important enzymes, along with their respective
applications, are listed in table 46.

103
Chapter 4

Table 46: Important enzymes for textile application

Process  Type of enzyme 

Desizing  Amylase 

Scouring  Pectinase 

Bleaching 
Glucose oxide 
H2O2 preparation 
Catalase 
Bleach cleaner 

Reactive dyeing wash off  Laccase 

Bio wash  Laccase and cellulose 

Bio polish  Catalase 

Flax retting  Flaxzym and ultrazym 

Wool and silk 
Shrink‐resistant wool 
Protease 
Antifelting of wool 
Degumming of silk 

Wrinkle recover of linen  Polygalactoranase 

Absorbency and surface modification of polyester  Lipase 

Waste cotton treatment  Cellulase 

Source: TheSmartTime, 2008 

4.3.4.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

Some of the advantages attributed to enzyme use in textiles processing include reduced process time,
improved quality, as well as energy and water savings. A scenario has been included in the model in
order to quantify the improvement potential of enzyme use in two process steps: the desizing and
scouring of cotton by enzymes instead of regular chemicals, as shown in table 47. Consequently, this
option only concerns cotton. The other fibres were excluded because of a lack of data on the enzyme
use associated with them.

The impacts related to the enzyme production have not been included in the model due to lack of data.
Enzymes can theoretically be reused as many times as needed, hence suggesting that the impacts of
enzyme production are low when scaled to their lifetime.

The parameters that are used for the baseline and the enzyme replacement scenarios are shown in table
47, from which it can be observed that also other chemicals are to be used with enzymes. This is of
importance because the initial savings obtained through the enzyme use might be offset by the use of

104
 Chapter 4

new chemicals which have been included in the life cycle model. Data have been gathered from
ENSAIT (2009).

Table 47: Input parameters of the 'baseline' and 'enzyme' scenarios

Substance   Scouring  Desizing 

(‘kg’ is ‘kg yarn’) 
Baseline  Enzyme  Baseline  Enzyme 

Water (l/kg)  80  60  7  6 

Caustic soda (g/kg)  26  ‐  40  ‐ 

Enzymes (g/kg)  ‐  20  ‐  9 

Soda ash (g/kg)  ‐  10  ‐  ‐ 

Acetic acid (g/kg)  ‐  6  ‐  1 

Sodium carbonate (g/kg)  32  ‐  0.1  ‐ 

Surfactant (g/kg)  ‐  20  0.7  15 

Detergent with wetting agent (g/kg)  40  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

HCl (g/kg)  2  ‐  0.1  ‐ 

Hydrogen peroxide (g/kg)  ‐  ‐  ‐  3.4 

Oxalic acid (g/kg)  ‐  ‐  0.5  ‐ 
Source: ENSAIT, 2009 

 Results
Figure 43 compares the environmental impacts of the textile life cycle in the EU-27 for the enzyme
scenarios and the baseline scenario.
The use of enzymes could reduce the environmental impacts in almost all the categories, nevertheless
impact variations associated with this option are almost negligible (below 1 %, in absolute value for
all the indicators).

The limit of this improvement option is that cotton was the only fibre included in the analysis because
it was not possible to gather information on the other fibres. Moreover, the improvement potential
does not look very significant also because enzymes inevitably involves the use of compounds which
are not originally included in the scouring and desizing processes, such as surfactant and acetic acid.
As a consequence, the potential benefits of this option are reduced, even worsening some indicators.

105
Chapter 4

Mid‐points End‐points

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Ressource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0.20 0.16
0.15
0.10
0.03
0.05 0.00 0.01
0.00
‐0.05 ‐0.03 ‐0.02 ‐0.02 ‐0.02 ‐0.01
‐0.03
‐0.05‐0.03‐0.05 ‐0.06‐0.07 ‐0.05
‐0.03 ‐0.03 ‐0.03
‐0.10
‐0.15 ‐0.11
‐0.20

‐0,73
Figure 43: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from the enzyme use scenario

4.3.4.3 Barriers and opportunities

As an alternative to conventional processes which create a high level of impact, technical enzymes
may be a viable possibility. However, this technique faced some challenges within the last decade.
Although major enzyme manufacturers predicted a growth in enzyme sales for the textile market,
growth has been modest, and in some cases, decreasing (Novozymes, 2008). For example, sales of
textile enzymes for abrasion of denim fell in 2008 as the result of a fashion trend in favour of darker
denims and a slowing US denim demand. This resulted in a falling demand for enzymes that carry out
these processes. Enzyme manufacturers are however continuing to work on penetrating the textiles
market and some are confident that this is an area for significant growth (Novozymes, 2008).

4.3.5 Alternative knitting techniques

4.3.5.1 Context

Knitting is a subprocess of the process called ‘fabric formation’. Fabric can be either woven or knitted.
The process of knitting fabrics has experienced a series of technological improvements. Knitted items
can now be made quickly and efficiently, and the process has also allowed for innovations such as
three-dimensional and seamless whole garment knitting. Data have been gathered based on a previous
study which considered the impacts of different knitting techniques (BIO, 2006). The three main
knitting techniques are:
 straight knitting (flat or circular, flat panel knitting is used in the baseline scenario)
 fully-fashioned knitting
 integral knitting.

106
 Chapter 4

 Straight (flat or circular) knitting

Knitting, whether by hand or on a machine, is usually done by using warp and weft knitting
techniques. Straight knitting most commonly relies on the weft technique which consists of using one
continuous yarn which is fed to and looped in rows by one or more needles at a time. Two common
forms of straight weft knitting machines exist:

 Flat knitting machine – also known as the cut and sew technique, flat knitting creates
rectangular panels of fabric. Once made, these panels are cut into the desired size, and
subsequently sewn to create the garment. These machines are quite versatile as they can create
fabrics with different colours, patterns and knitting textures. The size of the fabric panel is
dependent on the size of the frame, which can be as wide as 2.5 metres. Taking this
consideration into account, two flat knitting methods have been considered in the model –
large and measured panel knitting.
 Circular knitting machine – as the name suggests, circular knitting can be used to create
cylindrical panels of knitted fabric. This method is often used for the creation of socks and
sweaters. As with flat knitting, circular knitting machines are also able to create different
textures and patterns, such as ribbing.

 Fully fashioned knitting

The fully fashioned knitting technique is a relatively recent knitting technique, which is essentially an
advancement of the straight knitting technique. The distinguishing characteristic of the technique is
that instead of knitting large rectangular panels, the machine can knit a custom-shaped two
dimensional sheet of fabric. One of the advantages of this machine is that there is little or no need for
cutting panels, and therefore little or no fabric is discarded in the process. Although it can reduce
material and labour costs significantly, this type of technique requires significant investment (The
Textile Institute, 2002).

 Integral knitting

Integral knitting is a further advancement of the fully fashioned knitting technique. An integral
knitting machine is able to add additional trimmings as an integrated part of the fabric panel (e.g.
pockets, collars, V-necks). Along with the advantage of reducing fabric loss from cutting, this
technique then also reduces sewing requirements (Peterson, 2007).

State-of-the-art integral knitting machines are now available which are able to knit complete garments,
and therefore eliminate cutting and sewing steps altogether. This type of technology is becoming
increasingly attractive as it eliminates the costs of expensive post-knitting steps, decreases raw
materials consumption, and also produces higher-quality garments (Mowbray, 2002).

4.3.5.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

In the baseline of the model, flat, large panel knitting has been assumed. The two other techniques
considered as alternatives are: fully fashioned and integral knitting. These techniques avoid cutting
losses, but the flip side is the fact that they need much higher energy inputs. The energy inputs and
fabric losses considered in the model have been based on the parameters presented in table 48. In the
improvement scenario, the alternative knitting options have been applied to all knitted clothes for the
following fibres: cotton, viscose, wool, silk, polyester, and acrylic which are the only knitted fibres.

107
Chapter 4

Table 48: Energy inputs and fabric losses for different knitting techniques

Type of knitting technique 
Energy use and fabric losses 
(per 400 g pullover)  Flat (large panel), 
Fully fashioned  Integral 
baseline scenario 

Energy (Wh)  120  1200  3250 

Knitting 
Losses (%)  6  6  6 

Energy (Wh)  112  ‐  ‐ 
Cutting 
Losses (%)  21  ‐  ‐ 

Energy (Wh)  176  176  0 

Confection 
and finishing 
Losses (%)  5  3‐5  3 

 Results
Figure 44 present the results of the comparison between the baseline scenario and the two knitting
alternatives.

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Freshwater ecotoxicity

Urban land occupation
Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health

10
8
8

8
6
5
4

3
3

4
3

3
3
3

2
2

2
2

2
2

1
1

2
1

1
1
1

1
1
0

0
‐2
0

0
0
‐1
‐2

‐2

‐4
‐2

‐3

‐3
‐4

‐4

‐6
‐5

‐8
‐7

‐10
‐9

Fully Fashioned  Knitted  Fabric Integral Knitted  Fabric

Figure 44: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from alternative knitting
techniques

108
 Chapter 4

The influence of different knitting techniques shows significant changes in the environmental impacts
of the total textile chain in the EU. For some impact categories the change in technology leads to
improvements, while in other categories the environmental burdens increase. The trade-off is due to
the increased energy use and to the reduced material losses associated with the alternative knitting
technologies. Loss rates have a strong influence and their reduction results in significant
environmental improvements, while energy input could be considered as a secondary parameter, with
lower effects on the environmental profiles of knitting techniques.

Impact categories as ionising radiation and particulate matter formation are particularly sensitive to
energy demand variations (i.e. electricity and natural gas). Nevertheless, even if the energy
consumption increases considerably with the alternative knitting techniques, the effects due to this
variation seems to be much more limited. For example, in the case of integral knitting, an increase of
the energy consumption by 2600 % is associated with an increase of the ionising radiation indicator by
5 %.

Other impact categories are instead so much influenced by the reduced loss of fabric pieces that a
negative indicator results. Credits due to avoided material losses are in particular related to natural
fibres, which dominate the EU-27 market. The highest net benefit (9 %) is registered for the ozone
depletion impact category in case of fully fashioned knitted fabric. Significant improvements could be
also achieved for water depletion, natural land transformation and fossil depletion.

With respect to the endpoints indicators, results show an overall improvement for all the categories of
the ReCiPe method, except for the impact on human health in case of integral knitted fabric, for which
energy inputs slightly outweigh the potential improvement due to the reduction of material losses. In
comparison with the baseline scenario, from the point of view of the endpoint indicators, the fully
fashioned knitting technique appears to be the best available option.

4.3.5.3 Barriers and opportunities

With the introduction of fully fashioned machines in the late 19th century, many producers favoured
innovative fully fashioned technologies over conventional knitting machines (such as circular
machines). Fully fashioned machines cut down labour and resource costs, and also produced a higher
quality knit. However, towards the turn of the 19th century, competition among knit producers grew
and manufacturers preferred working with circular knit machines, as they were much less expensive
than fully fashioned machines (The Textile Institute, 2002). Also in the future, companies could, as
they have in the past, opt to invest in cheaper but less efficient techniques. As mentioned earlier, fully
fashioned, integral or full garment knitting machines require a significant amount of initial capital
investment. However, these costs can be offset by long term savings in labour and resource costs.
Replacing older inefficient machines is more a question of time and not a decision that is made rashly.

In the period between 2003 and 2007, the knitting industry experienced a high number of investments
in new circular and flat knitting machines causing an increase in the number of machines as well as
technological improvements (Knitting Industry, 2008) However, in 2008, the shipment of these
machines fell by 21 % and 7 % respectively in comparison with 2007 (Knitting Industry, 2008).
Falling sales of knitting machines could, however, motivate manufacturers to invest in new
technologies to remain competitive. Continuing developments in this area are likely to lead to reduced
costs and savings in resources. This could have a positive knock-on effect on the environmental
performance of these industries. However, in countries where manual labour is still inexpensive,
manufacturers may have less incentive to invest in expensive but efficient technology. However, there
is a growing interest in computerised machines which not only produce at higher efficiencies, but also
at much higher outputs and greater speeds, and allow for greater flexibility in design.

109
Chapter 4

4.3.6 Dye controller and low liquor ratio dyeing machines

With legislative pressures mounting on businesses to adopt methods which produce a lower
environmental impact, it is in the interest of most to adopt cleaner technologies. Concerning the
textiles sector, an important Directive is the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), which will
govern the quality of effluent discharged from industry. Passed in December 2000, the WFD aims to
achieve its goals of restoring river basins to a ‘good chemical and ecological status’ according to
standards set in River Basin Management Plans (European Commission, 2007b). A key principle of
the WFD is the use of the ‘polluter pays’ principle (Chave, 2001). This means that those companies
with discharge permits will have to bear the costs of waste water treatment, in order to reach the
desired water quality. The collection and treatment of water may be charged to the producer in
accordance with the amount of waste water produced. It is expected that this will make most waste
water-producing industries recycle or reuse water before discharging. Tax incentives and credits could
also potentially be used to reward those who employ clean technologies (Van Berkel, 1999).

The introduction of the Water Framework Directive has been called revolutionary in terms of
environmental protection. It is likely to affect the textiles production industry which is one of the
greatest waste water generators. The requirements set under the WFD are likely to provide a strong
incentive for change. However, it should be taken into account that the terms of the WFD extend only
to waterways in the EU. A significant amount of textiles consumed in the EU are not produced within
its boundaries. Furthermore, with greater concern for the environment and human rights, water quality
will continue to be an area of development over years to come.

4.3.6.1 Context

Dyeing textiles can greatly affect the environment, as the process often generates various pollutants.
The concentration of waste chemicals in discharge can be dependent on the dye liquor ratio. The
liquor ratio is defined as the mass of dye-bath used per mass of material being dyed. Another
important factor is exhaustion, which is defined as the degree to which dye is transferred to the textile
during the dyeing process. The higher the degree of exhaustion, the more dye has been taken up by the
fabric. One of the main contributors to effluent chemicals from dyeing is the low degree of exhaustion.
The latest jet machines, which are able to dye textiles at low liquor ratios, are able to overcome this
problem (Lidyard et al., 2008). The textile is fed through a closed tube and a jet of dye solution is
applied to the textile. Turbulence created by the jet also aids in penetration of the dye. Due to the
higher efficiency of this method compared to conventional ratios, its use results in reduced
consumption of water and chemicals.

Dye machine controllers can successfully regulate various aspects of the dyeing process. The
controllers work via a feedback system, rapidly analysing process conditions and altering parameters
to reach optimum conditions for dyeing. They are able to control parameters such as pH, salt, colour,
chemical levels based on liquor ratio and temperature. One particular advantage of dye machine
controllers is that they are capable of controlling the amount of water utilised in the dyeing process,
and therefore also control the amount of effluent produced.

Both the implementation of controllers and the use of low liquor dyeing machines have been
considered simultaneously as they address the same issue. Additionally, individual assessment
revealed that few benefits can be observed if those options are assessed separately.

4.3.6.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

The improvement potential of dye machine controllers and low liquor ratio dyeing machines has been
based on the reduction of water and chemicals use for all dyeing stages. Results of the literature
review have shown that the installation of this type of technologies results in an average water

110
 Chapter 4

consumption reduction of approximately 69.6 % and 28 % for the dyeing process (DANCED,
undated). The estimated values are shown in Table 49. It is apparent that both options make substantial
savings possible for this dyeing phase.

Table 49: Parameters for water and chemical inputs in the dyeing phase

Process  Reduction due to controllers  Reduction due to the use of low liquor dyeing 

change  implementation  machines 

Water use  69.6 %  28 % 

Chemical use  59.4 %  ‐ 
Source: DANCED, undated 

 Results
The environmental improvement potential due to installing dye machine controllers was assessed
against the baseline scenario (see Figure 45).

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Freshwater ecotoxicity

Urban land occupation
Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health

0.0
0.0
‐0.1

‐0.1
‐0.1

‐0.2
‐0.1
‐0.1

‐0.1
‐0.1
‐0.1

‐0.1
‐0.1
‐0.1

‐0.2
‐0.2

‐0.2
‐0.2

‐0.2

‐0.4

‐0.6

‐0.8
‐0.7

‐0.8
‐0.9

‐1.0
‐1.0

‐1.2

Figure 45: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from water consumption
reduction scenario in the dyeing process

Limited environmental benefits (lower than 1 %) seem possible for all the indicators. This is due to the
fact that the improvement options addressed here are only related to a small share of total water
consumption of the whole fabric production chain. Raw material production is, in comparison, much
more water consuming, in general. For example, one kilogram of cotton fabric requires 120 litres of
water, while dyeing 1 kg of cotton fabric only requires 2 litres of water.

111
Chapter 4

The highest reduction of the impacts can be observed for metal and water depletion, as well as for
natural land transformation. From the point of view of the endpoint indicators, ecosystem diversity is
the one showing the highest potential of improvement (0.8 %). Avoiding the use of dye has beneficial
effects on natural land transformation because dye production requires raw materials which are
extracted in mines.

4.3.6.3 Barriers and opportunities

As low liquor ratio techniques contribute to reducing water consumption and effluent production, it
may be of interest to companies who will be affected by the WFD. However, the consumption of
water will ultimately also be dependent on the amount of water used in subsequent washing stages. If
more water has to be used at these points, it could offset the reduction provided by low-liquor ratio
dyeing machines. Low-liquor ratio dyeing machines can not only improve the environmental
performance of the dyeing stage, but provide also high economic benefits, despite the need for a
significant initial investment (see Table 50). If operated efficiently, low liquor ratio dyeing machines
have an average payback period of approximately 1.9 years for a medium-sized dyeing plant (Marbek
Resource Consultants, 2001).

Concerning dye machine controller, initial capital investment is lower than for low-liquor ratio dyeing
machines (see Table 50). Also, water savings are smaller (about half). Based on a recent study carried
out in the US, operating cost savings are much lower, and the payback period for these machines is
estimated to be 3.5 years (Marbek Resource Consultants, 2001). However, these devices have a
significant advantage over installing low-liquor ratio dyeing machines: they can be retrofitted to most
types of dye machines.

With the increasing costs of operation across all industries, dye machine controllers are a lower cost
option which may be advantageous for many textile mills.

Table 50: Costs related to installing the low liquor ratio dyeing technique or a dye machine controller in
a medium sized plant

Cost item   Low liquor ratio dyeing  Dye machine 

(average per plant)  technique  controller 

Capital cost in USD  3 370 000   450 000  

Net annual operating savings in USD  1 790 000   128 000  

Simple payback period in years  1.9  3.5 

Source: Marbek Resource Consultants, 2001 

4.3.7 Water recycling

4.3.7.1 Context

The finishing and wet processing steps of textiles production often produce a large amount of effluent,
which contains a number of environmental pollutants. A direct reuse of the water-based effluent is not
possible for most steps during textiles production due to technical limitations. However, a significant
volume of water can be recovered by the use of in-house effluent treatment systems. With the advent
of stricter effluent discharge legislation, there is some incentive for industries to recycle water and
reduce the toxicity of the effluent they produce. Many novel technologies are now available to treat
industrial effluent (Entec, undated). We will assess the improvement potential of two techniques
(described below in greater detail) that can lead to higher reuse of water.

112
 Chapter 4

4.3.7.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

Non-biodegradable chemical polymers are often present in significant quantities in effluents due to the
use of surfactants, dyeing chemicals, etc. (Das, undated). Preliminary, primary and secondary water
treatment systems are often unable to treat them. Thus, tertiary treatments are necessary. The two
types of tertiary systems investigated here are reverse osmosis and ion exchange. Note that these
techniques are quite recent and are energy-consuming. Today, they are still very expensive to
implement at a commercial scale.

In the comparison, energy inputs were not included, due to the lack of data available on these high-
technology processes. Only improvements from water reduction will thus be assessed via the two
scenarios.
 Reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis is an example of a membrane filtration process used to
remove total dissolved solids from effluent water (Remco, 2008). During this process, water
is demineralised using a semi-permeable membrane. The two main compartments on either
side hold different concentrations of water and electrolytes. The side containing a high
electrolyte concentration is subjected to high pressure, which forces water across to the
opposite chamber. As more water is displaced, the pressure must be increased to remove the
remaining water. Applying reverse osmosis in a textile mill can result in the recovery of
approximately 81 % of waste water for reuse.
 Ion exchange. As with reverse osmosis, this technique is used to remove undesirable
electrolytes from waste water (APEC, 2008). Water is fed through a matrix of ion exchange
resins, where undesirable electrolytes are exchanged for sodium and hydrogen ions
contained in the resin. As the ions in the resin are increasingly exchanged with ions from
waste water, the matrix must be regenerated in order to work effectively. The matrix must be
washed through with a highly concentrated solution containing sodium and hydrogen ions.
With the ion exchange technology, approximately 95 % of waste water can be recovered for
reuse.

 Results
Figure 46 presents the overall improvements reached with either reversed osmosis or ion exchange
technologies.

A reduction of the impacts is registered in all the midpoint and, consequently, in all the endpoint
indicators. The water depletion indicator is significantly diminished, by about 22% and 25% for
reversed osmosis and ion exchange, respectively. This impact is dependent on water consumption, and
is related to the amount of water that is recycled.

The impact on natural land transformation is also noticeably reduced (by about 10 % to 12 %) while
the rest of the indicators show improvements to a lesser extent (up to 3 %). The only substantial
benefits in terms of endpoint indicators are registered for the ecosystem diversity indicator.

This improvement options could thus be of particular interest in geographical areas where water is not
an easily available resource. Nevertheless, it should be remarked that it was not possible to assess the
impacts due to the different amount of energy required in reverse osmosis and in ion exchange

113
Chapter 4

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0.0
‐0.5
‐0.1
‐0.2
‐0.3

‐0.3
‐0.3

‐0.3
‐0.3

‐0.4
‐0.4
‐0.5

‐1.0

‐0.5

‐0.5

‐0.5
‐0.5
‐0.5

‐0.6

‐0.6
‐0.6
‐0.7

‐0.7
‐0.8

‐0.8

‐0.8

‐0.8
‐0.9

‐0.9

‐1.5

‐1.3

‐1.4
‐1.5

‐1.5
‐2.0

‐1.6

‐1.6
‐1.7

‐1.7
‐2.5
‐2.4

‐3.0
‐2.9

‐3.5
‐4.0
‐4.5
‐5.0
‐21.7
‐25.4

‐10.0

‐9.6
‐11.8

‐11.3
Reverse osmosis Ion exchange

Figure 46: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from the water recycling
scenario

4.3.7.3 Barriers and opportunities

There are some advantages and disadvantages when reverse osmosis or ion exchange technologies are
used for waste water treatment. Because of its membrane system, the reverse osmosis membrane can
remove larger particles instead of exclusively removing non-biodegradable chemicals. It also requires
minimal maintenance over a short period of time. However, in the textiles industry, the membrane can
become clogged with dyes over time. Other disadvantages include the high initial capital investment
(Subrata, 2000) and a slow rate of filtration, when compared to other types of techniques. Ion
exchange systems are able to remove dissolved substances efficiently from effluent, require a
relatively low initial capital investment, and the resin can be reused again after regeneration (1).
However, the running costs for this type of equipment can be high as it requires the addition of
chemicals for regeneration. Unlike reverse osmosis, it is also unable to remove larger particles which
could interfere with equipment and processes in the textiles mill. Despite the drawbacks, it could be of
interest for textile mills to include the two technologies assessed due to the significant water savings
that can be achieved.

(1) Free drinking water, Different filtration methods explained, http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-education/quality-

water-filtration-method.htm#Anchor-Reverse-23240

114
 Chapter 4

4.4 Improvement options for the distribution phase

Only one option was analysed for the distribution phase: ‘less air freight’.

4.4.1 Reducing air freight

4.4.1.1 Context

In recent years, due to the lower cost of production outside the EU, offshore sources of textile products
have an increasing appeal for EU retailers. Thus, long distance transportation has become an important
and necessary part of the textiles market. The transportation of goods can be carried out by four major
means – air, water, rail and road. The baseline model has considered air and sea freight to be the most
significant methods of long distance shipment of textiles. In the baseline scenario, the shipping is
broken down as follows: 92 % by sea freight and 8 % by air freight. In the improvement scenario, the
share of sea freight is increased up to 100 %.

4.4.1.2 Improvement potential

In the baseline scenario, the distribution phase is responsible for about 10 % of the overall impacts
(see Section 3.1). In the same scenario, it was assumed that long distance shipment is dominated by
shipping (92 %). Air transportation was assumed to be 8 %. According to the Ecoinvent 2.0
inventories, impact on climate change is 100 times greater for air transportation than for ship
transportation, approximately. Two scenarios have been modelled: the first one takes into account a
4 % share of air transportation, which corresponds to 50 % of the baseline scenario. Alternatively, the
second scenario considers 100 % shipping. Figure 47 presents the changes in overall impacts for the
different transportation scenarios.

Air freight is a significant source of environmental burdens. It is by far the most polluting means of
transportation, releasing much more greenhouse gases and air pollutants than trucks and ships,
according to the inventories gathered from the Ecoinvent 2.0 database. Consequently, substantial
improvements can be reached if air transportation is reduced.

By reducing or avoiding air transportation, the environmental impacts of the textile chain of the EU
can be reduced for all environmental categories. Significant reductions could be achieved for climate
change, particulate matter formation, ozone depletion and photochemical oxidant formation (from
about 2 % to 8 %, depending on the indicators and the ship/air freight ratio).

Land use impacts are mainly due to the transportation of oil in pipelines. Air freight uses more energy
per km and tonne of transported goods. The impacts due to this transportation mode are then higher
than the impacts resulting from trucks or ships.

115
Chapter 4

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0.0

0.0
0.0
‐0.1
‐0.1
‐0.1

‐0.1

‐0.1
‐0.1
‐0.1

‐0.2

‐0.2
‐0.2

‐0.2

‐1.0

‐0.3
‐0.4
‐0.4
‐0.4

‐0.8

‐1.0
‐1.1
‐2.0

‐1.5
‐1.9

‐1.9
‐1.9
‐2.0
‐2.1

‐2.2

‐2.2
‐2.2
‐3.0

‐3.1
‐4.0
‐3.7

‐3.8

‐3.9

‐3.9
‐3.9
‐4.0
‐4.2

‐5.0

‐4.5
‐4.5
‐6.0
‐7.0
‐8.0
‐7.4

‐7.7
‐7.9

Ship/air = 96/4 Ship/air = 100/0
‐9.0
Figure 47: Changes in the life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from the different
transportation scenarios

4.4.1.3 Barriers and opportunities

Shifts between different freight modes occur naturally within the distribution sector. In relation to air
shipments, they can be strongly influenced by market conditions and changing trade legislation
(Seabury, 2009). Between the years 2002 and 2007, the majority of shipments to Europe experienced a
positive mode shift towards air freight (Seabury, 2009). This is likely attributed to the decrease in unit
prices and the increased deregulation of air cargo (Euro-CASE, 2000). There were however, some
exceptions, most notably from China. Early in the decade, the global air freight sector was subject to
rapid growth, stimulated by a fall in unit prices and air cargo deregulation (Euro-CASE, 2000).

Air freight is often seen as a less advantageous method of transport due to its inevitably high costs,
which may ensure that sea freight remains competitive. Air transport is, however, vital for transporting
goods which require fast shipment, and may in some cases be cost effective. In particular, air freight is
not subject to high storage costs sometimes associated with sea freight. Once a ship has docked,
products are often held in storage before redistribution on land. As airports may be closer to final
destinations, storage is not as significant a necessity for air freight. As well as economic factors,
changing environmental legislation, and concerns over resource depletion and resulting rises in costs
are likely to affect the air freight industry in the future. In order to remain competitive, this sector may
need to concentrate on reducing costs and reducing the environmental impacts related to air transport.

116
 Chapter 4

4.5 Improvement options for the use phase

With regard to data availability and in accordance to the scope of this project, two main areas of
improvement are analysed in this section. In total, four improvement options were assessed:
 changing consumer behaviour:
 reducing washing temperature
 reducing tumble drying
 better loading of washing machine
 changing appliance efficiency:
 improvement of washing and drying appliances efficiency.

First, life cycle impact variations associated with each improvement option are shown. Then, the focus
is shifted to the life cycle phase related to the improvement option and to a selection of indicators:
climate change, the three endpoint indicators of ReCiPe and a set of other four sensitive indicators for
the improvement option.

4.5.1 Changing consumer behaviour

4.5.1.1 Context

There are many parameters associated with clothes cleaning that influence their environmental
impacts. These factors can be significantly determined by consumer choices; among which one can
consider:
 washing: washing frequency, selected programme/options, programme temperature and load
size
 drying: drying frequency, selected programme/options, programme temperature and load size
 ironing: ironing frequency, ironing time and ironing temperature.

Each of these parameters can differ for each product depending on its fibre nature, as well as its
practical functions. Household textiles, for example, are often washed less frequently than apparel.
Similarly, garments made of synthetic fibres are likely to be washed at lower temperatures in order to
avoid dimensional changes. Most of the use phase parameters can be adjusted to adopt more
environmentally friendly practices, without compromising cleaning and drying quality. In this section,
the analysis focuses on three measures for improving environmental performance:
 reducing washing temperature
 reducing tumble drying frequency
 optimising load capacity of washing and drying machines.

4.5.1.2 Improvement potential for reducing washing temperature

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

The selected program temperature has a high influence on the energy consumption of a washing
machine (Presutto et al., 2007). The average washing temperature was 45.8 °C in the EU in 2005.
However, average washing temperatures vary between countries (see Figure 51).

117
Chapter 4

Source: Presutto et al., 2007 
Figure 48: Temperature settings of washing machines in European countries

The above figure illustrates that there is a potential for reducing the average washing temperature in
Europe. Therefore two improvement scenarios have been considered:
 A shift to washing at 30 °C rather than 40 °C and at 40 °C instead of 50 °C for routine cycles
and at 60 °C instead of 90 °C for high temperature cycles. The resulting average washing
temperature in this 'conservative scenario' of improvement would be 39.3 °C.
 an 'optimistic scenario' of improvement corresponding to the situation in Spain, where the
average washing temperature is 32.9 °C

Table 51 presents the setting of washing temperatures in the various scenarios.

Electricity use has been calculated according to the methodology presented in Section 2.2.3.1:
0.21 kWh/kg in the baseline scenario, 0.17 kWh/kg in the 'conservative scenario' and 0.13 kWh/kg in
the 'optimistic scenario'.

Table 51: Share of washing temperatures for the various scenarios considered in the analysis

Washing  Baseline   Conservative   Optimistic  

temperature   scenario   scenario   scenario  
(°C)  (%)  (%)  (%) 

20  6  6  40 

30  18  55  29 

40  37  9  12 

50  9  0  6 

60  23  30  11 

90  7  0  2 

Average temperature  45.8 °C  39.3 °C  32.9 °C 

118
 Chapter 4

 Results
The comparison between the improvement options and the baseline scenario is shown in Figure 49.
Environmental benefits can be observed in all the indicators.

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0
‐1
0

‐1

0
0

0
‐1
‐1
‐1
‐1

‐1
‐1
‐2

‐1

‐1
‐1
‐2

‐2
‐2

‐2

‐3

‐2
‐2
‐2

‐2
‐2
‐2
‐2
‐2

‐2

‐3

‐4
‐3

‐4

‐4

‐5

‐4

‐4
‐4

‐5
‐5
‐5

‐5

‐6
‐7
‐8
‐8

‐9
Conservative  scenario  ‐ Optimistic scenario  ‐
Average temperature  39.3°C  Average temperature  32.9°C 

Figure 49: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from reduced washing
temperatures

The highest reduction can be obtained for ionising radiation: 4 % in the conservative scenario and 8 %
in the optimistic scenario. Other midpoint indicators that are affected significantly are: climate change,
particulate matter formation, terrestrial acidification. For all of them, reductions of 2 % (conservative
scenario) and 5 % (optimistic scenario) could be reached.

Regarding the endpoints, reducing the washing temperature is more beneficial for human health and
resource availability, with a decrease by about 5 % in the optimistic scenario, while the decrease
which can be reached for ecosystem diversity seems to be small (2 % in the optimistic scenario).

4.5.1.3 Improvement potential for reducing tumble drying

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

The tumble drying frequency is highly dependent on the season (see Figure 50). Indeed, during the
summer period most users dry their laundry outside while in winter tumble drying is the most
widespread way of drying (PriceWaterHouse Coopers, 2009). Other drying possibilities are indoor line
drying in heated or unheated rooms. Based on the EuP study on tumble dryers (PriceWaterHouse
Coopers, 2009), the baseline scenario considered that the average number of drying cycles per week
and per household is 2.3 in summer and 3.6 in winter.

119
Chapter 4

In the improvement options, it has been considered that it is during summer that the greatest
possibilities for reducing tumble drying can be found since the laundry can be dried outside. Reducing
tumble drying during winter time is more problematic. Therefore two scenarios for tumble drying
reduction have been considered:

 A first scenario assuming a 30 % reduction of the use of tumble drying during summer.
 A second scenario assuming a 50 % reduction of the use of tumble drying during summer and
a 15 % reduction during winter. It should be noted that, if the laundry is dried in rooms during
the winter season, additional energy would be required for this purpose. However, this
contribution has not been considered in the model because of difficult evaluation and
reasonably limited impact.

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 and
more
Source: PriceWaterHouse Coopers, 2009 
NB:  summer  in red and winter  in blue 
Figure 50: Number of drying cycles per week in summer and winter in the EU-27

The assumptions chosen for the different scenarios are summarised in Table 52. It is assumed in all
scenarios that 35 % of consumers in the EU are equipped with tumble dryers (see Section 2.2.3.2).

 Results
The comparison between the results of improvement and baseline scenarios are shown in Figure 23.

A decrease of all the indicators can be observed as a consequence of the electrical energy saved in the
improvement scenarios. The highest impact reduction is obtained for ionising radiation, with a
reduction of 2.7 % in the case of 50 % reduction of tumble drying in summer and 15 % reduction in
winter. The contribution to ionising radiation is due to the electricity production mix, which partly
relies on nuclear power. The reduction does not exceed 1.7 % for the other indicators, including the
endpoint indicators. The reductions remain limited due to the small share of tumble drying on the total
impacts of the use phase (see Section 2.2.3).

120
 Chapter 4

Table 52: Parameters affected by the reduction of the use of tumble drying

Scenario 

Parameter 
Optimistic 
Baseline scenario  Conservative scenario 
scenario 

Number  of  cycles  per  week  per 

2.3  1.6  1.2 
household in summer 

Number  of  cycles  per  week  per 

3.6  3.6  3.1 
household in winter 

Frequency  of  tumble  drying  among 

71  63  50 
dryer owners (in % of washes) 

% penetration ratio of dryers  35  35  35 

% of washes tumble dried  25  22  18 

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Freshwater ecotoxicity

Urban land occupation
Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health

0.0%
0.0

0.0

‐0.1
‐0.1
‐0.1

‐0.1

‐0.1
‐0.2

‐0.2
‐0.2

‐50.0%
‐0.3
‐0.3

‐0.3
‐0.3
‐0.4

‐0.4
‐0.4
‐0.5

‐0.6

‐0.6
‐0.6

‐0.6
‐0.6

‐0.7
‐0.7

‐0.7
‐0.7

‐100.0%
‐0.7

‐0.7
‐0.8
‐1.0
‐1.1

‐1.1

‐150.0%
‐1.4

‐1.5

‐1.5
‐1.5

‐1.6
‐1.7

‐200.0%
‐1.7

‐1.7

‐250.0%
‐300.0%
‐2.8

‐30% tumble drying  in summer ‐50% tumble drying  in summer, ‐15% in winter

Figure 51: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from tumble drying reduction

121
Chapter 4

4.5.1.4 Improvement potential for optimising the load of appliances

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

In the baseline scenario, a standard load capacity of 5.36 kg for washing machines was assumed (see
Section 2.2.3.1) which corresponds to the most frequent sold washing capacity. However, in reality
loads are often smaller. On average, 64 % of the standard capacity (3.4 kg) is usually loaded. This was
used for the baseline (see Section 2.2.3.1). In all scenarios, the load for tumble drying is assumed to be
similar to the one for washing since drying and washing usually take place in a row.
Two improvement scenarios have been assessed.
 A first scenario assuming that 69 % of the standard capacity is used, instead of 64 %. This
corresponds to a load of 3.7 kg per washing and drying cycle, instead of 3.4 kg.
 A second scenario assuming that 74 % of the standard capacity is used, corresponding to a
load of 4 kg per washing and drying cycle.

Parameters related to load capacity are indicated in Table 53.

Table 53: Load capacity parameters in the different load capacity scenarios

Load capacity scenario 
Parameter
Baseline scenario  Conservative scenario Optimistic scenario 

Average  theoretical  washing 

5.36  5.36  5.36 
machine load capacity in kg/cycle 

% capacity use under real conditions  64  69  74 

Average  load  capacity  under  real 

3.4  3.7  4.0 
conditions in kg/cycle 

Washing  energy  consumption  in 

0.21  0.20  0.19 
kWh/kg  

Washing water consumption in l/kg  13.5  12.7  12.0 

Drying  energy  consumption  in 

0.59 kWh  0.57 kWh  0.56 kWh 
kWh/kg 

 Results
The comparison between the results for the improvement and baseline scenarios are shown over the
page in Figure 52.

It is possible to observe that optimising the load capacity can reduce all the indicators. In particular,
the impact on toxicity can be significantly decreased: the overall impacts on human toxicity,
freshwater and marine ecotoxicity are indeed decreased by about 10 % in the optimistic scenario. In
addition, the reduced water consumption for washing leads to a 6 % decrease in the water depletion
indicator. The influence on the three endpoint indicators is instead lower since the reduction does not
exceed 4 %.

122
 Chapter 4

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0.0

‐0.2
‐0.4
‐0.7
‐2.0

‐0.8
‐0.9

‐1.1
‐1.2

‐1.3
‐1.6
‐1.6

‐1.7
‐1.8

‐1.8

‐1.8
‐1.8

‐1.9

‐2.0
‐2.1

‐2.1
‐2.1
‐2.4

‐2.4
‐4.0
‐3.0

‐3.3
‐3.3

‐3.3

‐3.3
‐3.4

‐3.4

‐3.8
‐3.8

‐3.9
‐4.0

‐4.4
‐6.0
‐5.0
‐5.5

‐5.5

‐6.1
‐8.0
‐10.0 ‐7.5
‐9.4
‐10.2

‐10.3

‐12.0
Load capacity  3.7 kg/cycle Load capacity  4 kg/cycle

Figure 52: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from increased load capacity

4.5.1.5 Barriers and opportunities

The adoption of sustainable practices depends on different aspects. Results of the Public
Understanding of Sustainable Clothing (Fisher et al., 2008) study have shown that some parts of
consumer laundering behaviour can be more susceptible to change than others. The perception of
‘cleanliness’ was found to be a strongly influencing factor on consumer laundering behaviour. The
study showed that consumers are reluctant to reduce the frequency of washing and drying, due to
concerns over the ‘freshness’ of items or smell. The study found that some consumers are apt to wash
and tumble dry below the load capacity as they dislike items ‘sitting around’ unwashed. The
perception of cleanliness can also influence the temperature at which consumers wash items. It is more
difficult to encourage a consumer to use reduced temperatures where items are more heavily soiled. To
an extent, encouraging consumers to wear clothes for longer periods could result in heavier soiling of
items, and could therefore encourage high temperature washing. Some may reduce the temperature
but, ultimately, it would be compensated by an increased detergent use (Fisher et al., 2008).

There seems to be some potential for change, however. A recent survey lead in the UK by a leading
detergent manufacturer found that in 2002, 2 % of respondents washed primarily at 30 °C, whereas in
2007, this number increased to 17 % (IPSOS, 2007). One factor that influenced the trend towards
colder temperature washing is the availability of washing detergents made specifically for this
purpose. Research has shown that low temperature detergents have no significantly higher
environmental impacts than regular formulations, even when used at the other temperatures (P&G,
2006). A potential drawback of routinely washing at low temperature is the possible accumulation of
bio-films in the washing machine. Using the correct dose of detergent, leaving the door open between
washes and carrying out a service wash at 60 °C are strategies that can be used to prevent bio-films
(BIO, 2009).

Although certain individuals have internalised sustainability into their thinking, they can be
constrained by factors such as physical space, time and weather (BIO, 2009). Conversely, those

123
Chapter 4

individuals that behave in a pro-environmental manner may do so due to economic pressures. This is
especially the case for tumble drying, where tumble drying may not be affordable, or high energy costs
encourage line drying over tumble drying. Increasing consumer awareness could to some extent
promote behaviour which lowers the impact on the environment. However, it appears that even for
consumers with a good level of awareness, convenience and cost play a greater role in influencing
choice (BIO, 2009).

4.5.2 Improvement of washing/drying appliances efficiency

4.5.2.1 Context

Along with consumer behaviour, it is also important to assess the efficiency of equipment. Washing
and drying appliances available on the market have different efficiencies depending on the technology
they rely on. The following assessment takes into account the current average energy consumption
patterns and determines the magnitude of improvement brought about by increasing appliance
efficiency.

4.5.2.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

The average energy and water consumption of washing machines in the baseline scenario was
modelled according to the average energy and water consumptions under standard conditions in
Europe, i.e. 0.998 kWh/cycle and 50.7 l/cycle (see Section 2.2.3.1). In order to test the influence of
improving the efficiency of washing appliances, minimum energy and water consumption values were
assumed, i.e. 0.92 kWh/cycle and 39 l/cycle under standard conditions (Presutto et al., 2007). Similar
calculations to the baseline scenario were then used to determine the energy and water consumption
under real conditions.

Regarding the efficiency of tumble dryers, the assumed energy consumption in the baseline scenario
was based on an average C class air vented tumble dryer. It was assumed that the tumble dryer
consumes 0.73 kWh per kg textiles under standard conditions (see Section 2.2.3.2). In order to assess
the influence of a more efficient technology, the use of class A heat pump dryers was assumed instead.
These dryers consume up to 50 % less energy than conventional condenser dryers, thanks to their
efficient heat pump technology. The average energy consumption of these dryers under standard
conditions is 0.55 kWh per kg (Topten.info, 2009), corresponding to an energy savings of 30 %
compared to the baseline. This reduction is in line with the finding of the EuP study on laundry dryers
(PriceWaterHouse Coopers, 2009) in which the use of a heat pump condenser dryer was found to
allow for reducing the energy consumption by 24 % on average.

Two scenarios were included in the analysis: a first scenario for which only the efficiency of washing
machines is assumed to be improved, and a second scenario for which an increased efficiency is
assumed for both washing machines and tumble dryers.

For both scenarios, the washing load is unchanged compared to the baseline scenario, i.e. an average
washing load of 3.4 kg per cycle is assumed. Table 54 sums up the parameters taken into account for
both improvement scenarios.

124
 Chapter 4

Table 54: Parameters affected by the use of energy efficient washing machines and tumble dryers

Scenario alternatives 

Parameter 
Improved efficiency of 
Improved efficiency of 
Baseline scenario  washing machines and 
washing machines 
dryers 

Energy consumption of washing 
0.21  0.19  0.19 
machines in kWh/kg 

Water consumption of washing 
13.49  10.38  10.38 
machines in l/kg 

Energy consumption of tumble 
0.59  0.59  0.44 
dryers in kWh/kg 

 Results
The comparison between the results of improvement and baseline scenarios are shown in Figure 53,
from which it can be observed that impacts can be reduced for all the indicators. The results revealed
that the highest benefits concern the water depletion indicator because of the water saved during
washing. For the other indicators, the impact reductions are lower but still appreciable. It can also be
noted that, except for water depletion, the improvement of the efficiency of tumble dryers brings more
benefits than the improvement of the efficiency of washing machines.

4.5.2.3 Barriers and opportunities

Recent legislation is expected to have a significant impact on the performance of certain appliances, in
particular washing machines and clothes dryers. The Ecodesign Framework Directive 2009/125/EC
provides a framework for implementing minimum Ecodesign requirements for Energy Using Products
(EuP). The aim of the Directive is to reduce the environmental impact of energy using products,
contributing to sustainable development whilst ensuring businesses do not experience heavy impacts.
The measures are mandatory and will therefore affect the parameters of all appliances to be sold in the
EU.

As regards washing machines, the draft implementing measure (BIO, 2009) was issued in April 2009,
before being approved by the EuP regulatory committee. The Commission Regulation (EU) No
1015/2010 on the ecodesign of washing machines was adopted in November 2010. The specific
requirements of the implementing measure will be introduced progressively between December 2012
to December 2013, with the requirements to be reviewed again in 2014.

125
Chapter 4

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0 0

0
0
0

0
0
‐2

‐1

‐1
‐1

‐1
‐1
‐1
‐1

‐1

‐1

‐1
‐1
‐2
‐2

‐2

‐2
‐2

‐2
‐2
‐2
‐2

‐2
‐4
‐3

‐3

‐4

‐4
‐4
‐4
‐4

‐4

‐6

‐5
‐6

‐8
‐10
‐12
‐14
‐13
‐13

Improved  washing machines efficiency Improved  washing machines and dryers  efficiency

Figure 53: Changes in life cycle impacts of textiles in the EU-27 resulting from increased efficiency of
washing machines and dryers

The requirements are as follows: from December 2011, minimum standards have required that all
washing machines with a rated capacity of greater than 3 kg have a minimum cleaning performance
and energy efficiency equivalent to A class performance on the current EU Energy Label. From
December 2012, the performance of washing machines has had to take into account standby power
which is to be measured with respect to different washing conditions, which are intended to be
representative of consumer use. This requirement is expected to drive improvements in performance
particularly where the washing machine is not loaded to full capacity.

From December 2013, the minimum standards introduced in 2011 will be tightened and washing
machines will be required to have a cooler 20 °C programme. Many washing machines already have a
cold wash programme (usually 30 °C) but in most cases this is only intended for items which cannot
withstand higher temperatures. It is important to note that there is no requirement for this programme
to be suitable for washing cotton fabric. The expected energy savings across Europe from these
measures is 2 000 GWh per year by 2020 (BIO, 2009).

The Regulation also sets requirements for the water consumption of washing machines. In the case of
washing machines, the requirements for a standard 60 °C cotton programme are (European
Commission, 2010) given below:

 From December 2011 the water consumption per cycle at full load has had to be lower than (5
× c) + 35 (where c is the rated capacity at full load). This corresponds to 12 l/kg for 5 kg of
load.
 From December 2013 the water consumption per cycle at full load shall be lower than (2.5 × c)
+ 35 (where c is the rated capacity at full load). This corresponds to 6 l/kg for 5 kg of load).

126
 Chapter 4

Water consumption benchmarks are also set for machines of different capacities (European
Commission, 2009):

 39 l/cycle (5 kg) or 5.6 l/kg

 43 l/cycle (7 kg) or 6.1 l/kg
 56 l/cycle (8 kg) or 7.0 l/kg.

Concerning tumble dryers, the preliminary EuP study was published in March 2009 (Pricewaterhouse
Coopers, 2009). The preparatory study considers a number of technical options for improving energy
efficiency. The analysis has shown that for the majority of options, the reduction of energy
consumption is quite modest, in comparison with the "Business As Usual" scenario (BAU). Ambitious
introduction of BAT appears to provide the greatest improvement, however this is the best case
scenario for improvement.

4.6 Improvement options for the end-of-life phase

Only one improvement option was considered for the end-of-life phase: the promotion of recycling
and reuse (see Section 2.2.4).

A first set of results show the impact variation from a life cycle point of view for all the indicators.
Then, a focus is placed on the life cycle phase related to the option, with a selection of indicators:
climate change and the three endpoint indicators are always shown, extended with a set of the other
four most sensitive indicators in order to facilitate the understanding of the analysis.

4.6.1 Promotion of recycling and reuse

4.6.1.1 Context

Clothes are often discarded before the end of their lifetime (Salvation Army, 2008). Across Europe,
many charitable organisations, such as the Salvation Army or the Red Cross, collect used clothing in
order to recycle it or to resale it as second-hand clothing. The principle is that people bring the clothes
they do not want to wear anymore to ‘drop-off’ containers belonging to charitable organisations or to
local charity shops. Door-to-door collection is also in use in some areas. The collected clothes are then
sorted and routed to different destinations depending on their quality and condition. Usually, best
quality items are sold in second-hand shops in the country of collection. Low-quality and torn or
stained clothes are sold to the textile recycling industry to be shredded and converted into wipers or
carded and mixed with other fibres to be re-spun into yarn. However, most clothes are baled and
shipped for resale in Eastern Europe, the Middle East or Africa. Second-hand garment bales are sold
via a commodity market to traders and then to stall merchants for resale at local markets. The money
from the sale of the donated clothes provides funds to charities for financing development projects
while it provides a source of cheap clothing particularly appreciated in developing countries (ERM,
2007; ERM & AEA Technology 2005).

The improvement options for the end-of-life phase therefore lie in the promotion of reuse and
recycling. This means than consumers need to be encouraged to donate the clothes they want to get rid
of. Across Europe, about 20 % of the clothing waste is collected, of which about 40 % are reused, 50
% are recycled, and 10 % are disposed of by incineration or landfilling (these values were chosen for
the baseline scenario, see Section 2.2.4).

127
Chapter 4

4.6.1.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and improvement assumptions

As said before, a collection of 20 % of the clothing waste was assumed as an average in Europe.
However, practices in this area vary greatly from one country to another. For instance, in Germany,
about 70 % of the potential tonnage is collected, while the population in Eastern countries like Poland
or the Baltic countries is not familiar at all with the collection of used clothes (Textile Recycling
Association, 2005).

In order to assess the potential benefits of increased recycling and reuse, two scenarios have been
analysed.
 A first, conservative, scenario for which a collection rate of 40 % of used clothes is assumed
(corresponding to the average collection rate in Scandinavia countries);
 A second, optimistic, scenario assuming a collection rate of 70 % (based on German
performances).

However, a significant part of the clothes collected in Western countries are routed to Eastern
countries for reuse as second-hand clothes. If these countries would reach a collection rate as high as
in Germany, a significant part of the reuse market might be at stake. In that case, the optimistic
scenario may thus not be realistic.

The fate of the clothes after collection has not been changed compared to the baseline scenario.
Therefore, 50 % of the collected clothes are still assumed to be recycled, while 40 % are reused either
in the EU or in developing countries. The remaining 10 % are incinerated or disposed in landfills. This
repartition between the different routes depends on the quality and conditions of the collected clothes
for which no improvement area can be easily pointed out.

The collection rates and the proportion of clothes recycled and reused are summarised in table 55
according to the scenarios.

Table 55: Setting of parameters for promotion of recycling and reuse scenarios

Promotion of recycling and reuse scenarios 
Parameter
Baseline scenario  Conservative scenario Optimistic scenario 

% of textile clothing waste being

20 40 70
collected

% of total clothing waste being 
10  20  35 
recycled  

% of total clothing waste being 
8  16  28 
reused 

% of total clothing waste being 
2  4  7 
landfilled or incinerated 

 Results
The comparison between the improvement and the baseline scenarios is shown in Figure 54 and it
highlights that environmental benefits occur for all the indicators and for both the improvement
options.

128
 Chapter 4

The environmental benefits associated with an increase of the collection rates from 20 % to 40 %
(conservative scenario) are limited between 0 % and 4 %. Environmental improvement potentials are
significantly higher in the optimistic scenario.

The highest benefits are obtained for the impact category 'ionising radiation' (i.e. 4% and 12 % for
conservative and optimistic scenarios, respectively) and mainly come from the prevented production
of new items. It is assumed that every item used second-hand prevents the production of a similar item
from virgin materials. This results in high savings in the production and processing stages, in
particular in terms of energy (explaining the high reduction obtained for ionising radiation).

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0
0

‐2
‐1
‐1

‐1
‐1
‐2

‐2

‐2
‐2

‐2

‐2
‐2
‐3

‐3

‐4

‐3
‐3

‐3
‐3
‐3

‐3
‐3

‐3
‐3

‐3
‐4
‐4

‐4

‐4
‐6
‐5

‐5

‐6
‐6
‐8
‐7

‐7

‐7
‐8

‐8
‐8
‐8

‐8
‐8

‐10
‐12
‐12

‐14
Collection  of 40% of clothing  waste  Collection  of 70% of clothing  waste 

Figure 54: Changes in life cycle impacts of textile in the EU-27 resulting from increased collection of
clothing waste

4.6.1.3 Barriers and opportunities

The promotion of reuse and recycling is in line with the European Landfill Directive that aims at
reducing biodegradable waste including organic textiles going to landfill to 75 % of the 1995 figures
by 2010 and to 35 % by 2020 (Environmental Information Exchange, 2009). In order to reach these
targets, the Directive has been transposed into national laws. For example, in the UK, landfill tax
regulations were implemented in 1996 to promote the 'polluter pays' principle, by increasing the costs
of disposal to landfill, thus reflecting the environmental impact of this option (1). However, the
promotion of used clothing only makes sense if recycling and second-hand businesses are viable.
Regarding the second-hand use business, while the demand is still high (Hansen K., 2004), the sector
currently faces some challenges on the donor side. The current ‘fast fashion’ trend results in cheap low
quality clothing that is often not suitable for reuse (ERM, 2007) and could lead to a decrease in the
availability of second-hand clothing. If a smaller fraction of the collected clothes can be sold as
second-hand clothes the whole business profitability will be affected. In addition, the second-hand

(1) HM Revenue and Customes, Landfill tax guidance, http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/landfill-tax/index.htm

129
Chapter 4

clothing business is threatened by the low price of Asian textile imports since the economic advantage
in buying second-hand clothes thus tends to disappear.

For the recycling of items unsuitable for reuse, the barriers are mostly technological. Recycling certain
types of textiles, such as plasticised prints on clothes, composite materials, and clothes treated to be
waterproof, is indeed problematic. However, as recycling technology is progressing, the means may be
developed to recycle such fibres, as has been the case with plastics recycling technologies in the last
decade (ERM & AEA Technology 2005).

Lastly, if the recycling and reuse business is to be developed at a larger scale, the infrastructures for
clothes collection and sorting will have to be adapted. Some support from authorities would be needed
to improve the infrastructure of clothing collection. But then of course cost effectiveness issues also
enter into the picture.

4.7 Case study ON FIBRE BLENDING

A case study was also carried-out in order to evaluate the environmental impact of fibre blending and
the potential benefits associated with it. A complete analysis of fibre blending would involve changes
in many parameters of the model, both with reference to the life cycle stages of each textile product
and to the functional unit itself (e.g. a difference in cloth quality implies a different lifetime). A
simplified case-study dealing with T-shirts was thus implemented.

4.7.1 Fibre blends

4.7.1.1 Context

A fibre blend is any combination of fibre types, whether they occur as different filaments or staple
fibres in the same yarn, or as different yarns assembled in the same fabric or garment. The components
are generally two different fibrous polymers each with their own characteristic properties: cotton and
polyester.

In the baseline scenario, the textile LCA model does not differentiate between single fibre fabrics and
fibre blends because the number of possible blends for a given item is too large to define specific life
cycle properties (e.g. washing temperature and lifetime) for each fibre blend. However, these types of
fabrics play an important part in the textiles market. Many types of clothing and household textile
products are produced from fibre blends. The most common types of blends include:
 polyester/cotton
 polyester/viscose
 polyester/wool
 wool/acrylic
 polyamide/wool.

Polyester and cotton blends (also called polycotton) are considered one of the most important and
common fibre blends. Often used for clothing products, blending these two fibres brings many
advantages compared to the use of only one fibre type. The blend is similar to cotton in terms of
breathability and also offers stretchability (due to the polyester component) therefore offering a more
comfortable fit. The blend may also be more crease resistant, durable and stronger than its single
components. One of the greatest disadvantages of fibre blends is that it is not always possible to
recycle them due to the differing properties of their constituent fibres. The equipment used to shred
and convert clothes back into fibres is not suitable for blended fibres and it is difficult to make new
yarns out of mixed fibres.

130
 Chapter 4

4.7.1.2 Improvement potential

 Baseline and fibre-blending assumptions

In the baseline scenario, products made from blended fibres are included in the textiles LCA model
but they cannot be distinguished from products made from ‘pure’ ones (see Section 2.2). The model
therefore does not allow characteristics of blended textiles such as longer lifetime, different care
instructions and different end-of-life due to reduced recyclability to be fully caught,

In order to evaluate the environmental consequences associated with fibre blending, a case study
focusing on T-shirts was carried-out. 'Wearing one T-shirt for one day' was selected as functional unit
of the study. Three fibre types were considered: 100 % cotton (CO), 100 % polyester (PES), and a
50:50 cotton-polyester blend (CO/PES).

The following differences exist between the different fibre types: cotton and polyester fabrics are dyed
using direct and disperse dyes, respectively. The blend, however, relies on two successive dyeing steps
using direct and disperse dyes. Other differences exist which are related to the use phase. Washing
temperatures and tumble drying depend on fibre type. Polyester can also be ironed, so that ironing
assumptions remain the same for every case. Table 56 shows the assumptions made on the use phase.

Table 56: Product parameters according to fibre type

Washing temperature 
Fibre type  Tumble drying  End‐of‐life 
(°C) 

100 % cotton  45.8 °C (Baseline)  Baseline  Baseline 

100 % polyester  40 °C  None  Baseline 

50 % cotton/50 % polyester  40 °C  Baseline  No recycling 

Products made from blended fibres often cannot be recycled, and therefore disposal routes differ from
those of non-blended fibres. The recycling route has therefore been removed for blended polyester and
the T-shirts are assumed to be disposed of instead.

The lifetime of fibre blends might differ between the three fibres used in this case study due to
differing durability and strength. No reliable information is publicly available on this topic therefore
testing was conducted by Ensait to determine the lifetime of each fibre type. Determination of the
abrasion resistance of fabrics was carried out by the Martindale method (1), determination of colour
fastness to rubbing with Crock Meter (2) and determination of colour fastness to machine washing with
soap or soap/soda (3). The results are displayed in Table 57.

In the case study, it is assumed that T-shirts are washed after each use for all three fibre types. it is also
considered that the distribution phase remains the same for all three fibre types.

(1) ISO 12 947-2.

(2) ISO 105-X12.
(3) ISO 105-C10:2006- Part 10.

131
Chapter 4

Table 57: Ratio of product lifetime in relation to fibre type

Corresponding number of 
Fibre type  Lifetime ratio in years 
washes during lifetime 

100 % cotton  1  50 

100 % polyester  1.9  95 

50 % cotton/50 % polyester  1.6  80 

 Results
Figure 55 shows the results of the comparative assessment of the cotton/polyester and polyester T-
shirts compared to a cotton T-shirt. Note that the results refer to the functional unit ‘wearing a T-shirt
for one day’ and not to the total textile life cycle in the EU-27.

The T-shirt made of the cotton/polyester fibre blend and the T-shirt made of polyester show lower
environmental impacts than the cotton T-shirt for all the indicators. In particular, in most impact
categories polyester scores sensitively lower that the fibre blend.

The main explanation for this pattern is the longer lifetime of polyester and of cotton/polyester fibre
blend. In addition, the lower temperature for washing (40 °C for the T-shirt containing some polyester
compared to 45.8 °C for cotton) reduces the impact of the use phase, which is a critical stage of the life
cycle (see Section 4.1). The differences observed between the T-shirt made of the blend and the T-
shirt made of polyester are instead mostly related to the production stage.

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS
Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health

0
‐10
‐5
‐6

‐10

‐20
‐11
‐14
‐15

‐15
‐15

‐15
‐15
‐16

‐16

‐18
‐19
‐19

‐19
‐20

‐30
‐21
‐21

‐21

‐21
‐23

‐23
‐25
‐25
‐28

‐28

‐28
‐29

‐30

‐40
‐38
‐39
‐40

‐50
‐48

‐60
‐60

‐70
‐67

‐68

‐80
‐70
‐79

‐90
‐100
‐91

‐92

‐95

CO/PES PES

Figure 55: Change in life cycle impacts resulting from wearing a T-shirt made of a 50:50 fibre blend of
cotton and polyester (CO/PES) or a T-shirt made of polyester (PES)

132
 Chapter 4

 Barriers and opportunities

There are many advantages when fibre types are replaced by fibre blends:
1. economy: the dilution of an expensive fibre by blending with a cheaper substitute;
2. durability: the incorporation of a more durable component can extend the useful life of a
relatively fragile fibre;
3. physical properties: a compromise to take advantage of desirable performance characteristics
contributed by both fibre components;
4. appearance: the attainment of an attractive appearance and tactile qualities using combinations
of yarns of different lustre, crimp or denier, which still differ in appearance even when dyed
uniformly to the same colour.

For example, silk fibre-based products are very desirable, albeit expensive. To achieve the attractive
qualities of these fibres in an economical way, these fibres have been blended with other cheaper fibre
types which have increased their market share in the last few years. This provides both an economic
solution, as well as increasing durability as shown above. As shown earlier, polyester improves cotton
tear strength, crease resistance, and abrasion resistance. The blended fibres exhibit, depending on the
blend, lower moisture regain, lower liquid water absorption, increased flammability and greater
susceptibility to pilling. Approximately 7 million tonnes of cotton and polyester are blended every
year (Ford, 1994). Currently there are no other fibre blends capable of yielding such compatible
properties, nor is any blend likely to be for years to come. From a life cycle perspective, the blending
of fibre types seems to offer a significant environmental improvement potential.

133
 Chapter 5

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 The most promising improvement options

5.1.1 Environmental improvement potential of the options

table 58 presents the maximum benefits which can be achieved with each of the improvement options
evaluated. Improvement potentials are referred to the three endpoint categories of ReCiPe and to the
full life cycle of textiles. In the case where several scenarios were examined for a given improvement
option, the results from the most optimistic scenario have been chosen. The full table for all the
indicators of ReCiPe is given in Annex 2.

Table 58: Environmental improvement potentials of the different options considered in the study and
for the endpoint indicators of ReCiPe. Values expressed in % and in comparison with the
baseline scenario

ENDPOINTS 

Phase  Option 
Human  Ecosystem  Resource 
health  diversity  availability 

Reducing agrochemical use  0.7  3.7  0.4 

Replacing cotton with hemp or flax  0.3  5.8  0.7 

Reducing consumption of sizing chemicals  0.2  0.3  0.2 

Production   Replacing chemicals with enzymes  0.03  0.11  0.03 

Using alternative knitting techniques  1.2  2.0  4.0 

Using dye controllers and low liquor ratio dyeing 
0.1  0.8  0.1 
machines  
Water recycling  0.6  11.3  0.6 

Distribution   Reducing air freight  3.9  1.9  4.5 

Reducing washing temperature  4.7  2.1  4.3 

Optimising the load of appliances  3.9  2.4  3.3 

Use  
Reducing tumble drying  1.6  0.7  1.5 
Improvement of washing/drying appliances 
3.8  1.7  3.6 
efficiency 
End‐of‐life   Promotion of reuse and recycling  8.1  5.7  7.7 

It can first be noted that the maximum improvement potential for all options and all endpoint
indicators is an 11 % reduction which is reached for ecosystem diversity in the case of the use of the
ion exchange technology to recycle the effluent water. Increasing the collection of used clothing for
recycling and reuse appears as the most promising option to reduce the impacts on human health and
resource availability by about 8 %. This option, which also allows for a significant reduction of the

135
Chapter 5

'ecosystem diversity' indicator (-5.7 %), appear the most effective strategy, among the ones
investigated in the study.

With reference to the implementation of the other options, lower but still appreciable environmental
benefits seem obtainable. As a general rule, options concerning with distribution and use phases
should be more beneficial for human health and resource availability, while interventions at
agricultural level should be more effective for ecosystem diversity.

Concerning with midpoint indicators, the most promising option for each indicator is presented in
table 59 (see Annex 2 for the complete results). The options that come out as the most efficient are:
 reducing agrochemical use in traditional cotton crops (particularly beneficial with respect to
the impact categories related to ecotoxicity and eutrophication);
 substituting cotton with hemp (particularly beneficial with respect to the impact categories
related to ecotoxicity, eutrophication, agricultural land occupation);
 using the ion exchange technology to recycle the effluent water during the production phase
(particularly beneficial with respect to the impact categories related to water depletion and
natural land transformation);
 avoiding air transportation (particularly beneficial with respect to the impact categories related
to ozone depletion, photochemical oxidant formation, natural land transformation);
 reducing the end product washing temperature (particularly beneficial with respect to the
impact category related to ionising radiation);
 increasing the load of capacity of washing and drying appliances (particularly beneficial with
respect to the impact categories related to human toxicity, freshwater and marine ecotoxicity,
metal and water depletion);
 increasing the efficiency of washing and drying appliances (particularly beneficial with
respect to the impact categories related to water depletion and ionising radiation);
 increasing the collection of used clothing to develop recycling and reuse (particularly
beneficial with respect to the impact categories related to climate change, ozone depletion,
photochemical oxidant formation, particulate matter formation, ionising radiation, terrestrial
acidification, fossil depletion, urban land occupation).

Interestingly, it can be noted that for 10 out of 18 indicators the most promising options are consumer-
oriented, which further emphasised the key role of the consumer behaviour.

In addition to this global overview, it is interesting to evaluate the options that are the most promising
within each life cycle phase.
Within the production and processing phase, high reduction potentials could be obtained by replacing
traditional cotton cultivation, as illustrated in Figure 56, which present the three most sensitive
indicators.

In addition, the contribution to water depletion can be decreased by 25 % by using the ion exchange
technology to recycle the effluent water. This option also brings a 12 % reduction in the contribution
to natural land transformation.

136
 Chapter 5

Table 59: Most promising options for reducing the environmental impacts of textiles according to the
midpoint indicators of ReCiPe

Most promising option to decrease the contribution to the  % reduction 
Midpoint Indicator
indicator reached
Climate change 8
Particulate matter formation 8
Ionising radiation 12
Increase of the collection of used clothing for reuse and recycling
Terrestrial acidification 8
Fossil depletion 8
Urban land occupation 7
Freshwater ecotoxicity 10
Marine ecotoxicity 9
Increase of the load capacity of washing and drying appliances
Metal depletion 7
Human toxicity 10
Freshwater eutrophication 31
Marine eutrophication Substitution of cotton by hemp  18
Agricultural land occupation 24
Water depletion 25
Recycling of effluent water by ion exchange technology
Natural land transformation 12
Ozone depletion Use of fully fashioned knitting 9
Photochemical oxidant formation Avoidance of air transportation 8
Terrestrial ecotoxicity Replacement of traditional cotton by GM cotton 45

Table 60: Highest reduction potentials for the improvement options that concern the production and
processing phase

Impact reduction assessed over  
the whole life cycle (%)

Midpoint indicator
Replacing traditional cotton by 
Replacing cotton by hemp 
genetically modified cotton 

Terrestrial ecotoxicity  45  32 

25  31 
Freshwater eutrophication 

Agricultural land occupation  13  24 

For the use phase, the reductions observed over the whole life cycle do not exceed 12 %. From a
global point of view, of the four improvement options assessed for the use phase, increasing the load
capacity of washing and drying appliances appears as the most promising option, followed by
reducing the washing temperature and improving the efficiency of washing machines and dryers. The
reduction of the tumble drying frequency does not appear to bring any significant benefits. Figure 56
presents the highest reduction potentials that could be obtained for the three most promising options.

137
Chapter 5

Figure 56: Highest reduction potentials for improvement options that concern the use phase

Impact reduction assessed over the whole life cycle (%) 

Increasing the load capacity of  Improving washing machines and 
Reducing the washing temperature
washing and drying appliances  dryers efficiencies 

Human toxicity  10  Ionising radiation  8  Water depletion  12 

Freshwater 
10  Terrestrial acidification 5  Ionising radiation  6 
ecotoxicity 
Marine ecotoxicity  9  Climate change  5  Terrestrial acidification  4 

For the distribution and end-of-life phases, only one option has been assessed within each phase. The
highest reduction potentials of avoiding air transportation bring a maximum reduction of 8 % for the
category photochemical oxidant formation. Increasing the collection rate of used clothing is instead
the most efficient option for reducing the impacts due to ionising radiations (by up to 12 %).

It should be however noted that not all the impact categories have the same environmental
significance. In other words, a higher/lower concern could be given to some environmental issues.
This evaluation, which is in any case a subjectivity matter, could be for example apparent after the
indicators are normalised, as shown in Annex 2.

Table 61 and table 62 present the highest reduction potentials for the most efficient improvement
options for the distribution and the end-of-life phases.

Table 61: Highest reduction potentials for the improvement option that concerns the distribution phase

Impact reduction assessed over the whole life cycle (%) 

Avoiding air transportation 

Photochemical oxidant formation  8 

Natural land transformation  8 

Ozone depletion  7 

Table 62: Highest reduction potentials for the improvement option that concerns the end-of-life phase

Impact reduction assessed over the whole life cycle (%) 

Increasing the collection of used clothing for reuse and recycling 

Ionising radiation  12 

Climate change  8 

Terrestrial acidification  8 

138
 Chapter 5

It is apparent from the analysis of the improvement options that it is not possible to objectively select a
single strategy effectively capable to reduce the environmental burdens of the textile sectors because
the options investigated for each life cycle phase can yield benefits with respect to different impact
categories.

5.1.2 Combination of improvement options

In order to evaluate the maximum benefits that could be gained, the environmental impacts of a
scenario combining all the compatible options has been assessed. The options combined within this
scenario are presented in Figure 57 which shows the environmental improvement potential due to the
combination of the improvement options compared to the baseline scenario. Significant reductions can
be obtained. the contribution to each indicator is decreased by at least 17 %. The contribution to the
three endpoint indicators are reduced by between 21 % and 27 %. In addition, terrestrial ecotoxicity
and water depletion appear as the midpoint indicators for which the reduction potential is the highest,
i.e. 51 % and 35 %, respectively. The next most important reduction is in relation to marine
eutrophication, with 34 %. The impacts of the textile life cycle on climate change could be reduced by
22 %.

The hypothetical replacement of traditional cotton by GM cotton has been included in the analysis,
while the substitution of cotton for hemp has been left out of the combined scenario. The replacement
of chemicals with enzymes has also been excluded because data was missing to fully model this option
(see Section 4.3.4).

Figure 57 shows the environmental improvement potential due to the combination of the improvement
options compared to the baseline scenario. Significant reductions can be obtained. The contribution to
each indicator is decreased by at least 17 %. The contribution to the three endpoint indicators is
reduced by 21 % to 27 %. In addition, terrestrial ecotoxicity and water depletion appear as the
midpoint indicators for which the reduction potential is the highest, i.e. 51 % and 35 %, respectively.
The next most important reduction is in terms of marine eutrophication, with 34 %. The impacts of the
textile life cycle on climate change could be instead reduced by 22 %.

139
Chapter 5

Table 63: Overview of the improvement options included in the scenario combining different
improvement options

Included in the 
scenario combining 
Phase  Option  
improvement 
options 

Replacement of traditional cotton by GM cotton  

Substitution of cotton with flax or hemp  

Reducing the consumption of sizing chemicals  

Production   Replacement of chemicals with enzymes  

Use of fully fashioned knitting  

Use low liquor ratio dyeing machines and dye machine controllers  

Recycling of effluent water by ion exchange technology  

Distribution   Avoidance of air transportation  

Reduction of the washing temperature  

Increase of the load capacity of washing and drying appliances  
Use  
Reduction of the use of tumble drying  

Improvement of washing machines and dryers efficiencies  

End‐of‐life   Increase of the collection of used clothing for reuse and recycling  

It should be noted that the options have been assessed based on current trends without taking into
consideration the possible future evolution of some parameters that could affect the achieved benefits.
For example, for the use stage, the improvement option concerning the efficiency of appliances has
been modelled based on best available techniques. However, thanks to technical progress, the
efficiency of appliances will be continually improved. In addition, the analysis of the effects due to a
reduction of the drying frequency does not take into account the possible evolution of the proportion
of the EU population equipped with dryers. This parameter would also play a role in the evaluation of
the influence of an increased load capacity.

Taking into consideration future trends could also suggest alternative options that have not been
assessed in the present study. For instance, concerning transport, the share of alternative transportation
means might increase. It could be for example imagined that in future textiles will be more frequently
transported by rail than by trucks.

140
 Chapter 5

MIDPOINTS ENDPOINTS

Photochemical oxidant formation
Particulate matter formation

Agricultural land occupation

Natural land transformation
Freshwater eutrophication
Terrestrial acidification

Urban land occupation
Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine eutrophication
Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Resource availability
Ecosystem diversity
Marine ecotoxicity
Ionising radiation
Ozone depletion

Water depletion
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Climate change

Human toxicity

Human health
0
‐10
‐20
‐17

‐18

‐18
‐18
‐19

‐21

‐21
‐21

‐22
‐22

‐23

‐23
‐23

‐30
‐24

‐25

‐27
‐28

‐30
‐34
‐40

‐35
‐50
‐51

‐60
Alternative  scenario  combining  improvement  options

Figure 57: Changes in life cycle impacts of textile use in the EU-27 for combined improvement options

5.2 Conclusion
The textile industry is characterised by one of the longest and most complicated industrial chains in
the manufacturing industry, bringing into play actors from the agricultural, chemical fibre, textile,
apparel, retail, services and waste treatment sectors. This fragmented and heterogeneous industry is
dominated by small and medium enterprises.

A key challenge of this project was to cope with the lack of consistent and reliable data on both
structural (e.g. intermediary product flows, end-of-life routes) and technological (e.g. demand of
energy, raw materials and chemicals) issues. Some assumptions have been necessary in order to
perform the environmental assessment of the textiles lifecycle.

The key conclusion of the project is that the life cycle environmental impacts of the textiles market are
mainly influenced by production and use phases. Within the production and processing phase, the use
of agrochemicals to produce natural fibres contributes significantly to eutrophication, ecotoxicity and
land use. The production of synthetic fibres rather raises some concerns due to the consumption of
fossil resources. Reuse and recycle of old textiles appears to lead to significant positive effects on the
impacts from the production phase. In the use phase, detergents are responsible for a high share of
toxicological impacts, while the energy needs associated with washing and drying contribute to
indicators such as climate change, ozone depletion, photochemical oxidant formation and particulate
matter formation.

In general, the impacts of textile consumption can be classified under two headings: supply factors and
demand factors. Supply factors encompass drivers such as: agricultural practices, production processes
of the textile industry, product design and functionalities of household appliances, and the existence of
sorting and recycling schemes. Concerning demand factors, the impacts are mostly driven by social
parameters, including: choice of products/fibres, care practices (washing, drying, and ironing), lifetime

141
Chapter 5

of product in the context of fast fashion, and disposal practices. Efforts to reduce the overall impact of
the EU-27 textiles market should concentrate both on the production and on the use phases.
The assessment of improvement options in this study suggests that a significant reduction of impacts
can be achieved by targeting consumers. Practical actions could focus on: reducing washing
temperature, washing at full load, favour line drying whenever possible, purchasing eco-friendly
fibres, and donating clothes instead of throwing them away. To achieve such changes it is necessary
for consumers to be aware of these issues, and it is imperative that infrastructural requirements can be
met. Raising awareness and dissemination therefore become important drivers of change. Promotion
of ecolabels, and examples of best practice cases could be used as tools to improve the environmental
performance.

Overall, concerning improvement options related to supply factors, it is challenging to accurately

assess and compare the improvement potential offered by single actions due to a lack of experience
with emerging techniques. Nevertheless, the analysis suggests that significant improvement can be
achieved by appropriately encouraging practices in the textile industry with a lesser environmental
impact, such as replacing traditional cotton with more eco-friendly crops, recycling the effluent water
during the production phase, avoiding air transportation.

Environmental policy intervention can address both the supply and demand of textiles. At the
European level, the initiatives launched so far have mostly focused on the production phase. One can
for instance mention the directives and voluntary schemes promoting cleaner production such as the
REACH legislation or the EMAS voluntary instrument that have a strong influence on the industry.
Other notable actions include product targeted measures such as the Ecodesign Directive which is a
key EU strategy. However, when it comes to the textile industry, the field of action of European
policies and legislations could be limited by the fact that most of the production takes place outside of
the EU borders. Therefore, one way to tackle this limitation is to further develop the use of market and
policy instruments which are more consumer-oriented, such as the European Ecolabel scheme.

5.3 Recommendations
To be able to cope with the complexity of the textile sector, some simplifications have been necessary.
Average European data were therefore used to model the environmental impacts of textile products
consumed in EU-27. However, the study highlights that there are significant data gaps in the textile
sector. This section identifies the key issues for which data gaps were identified and suggests how they
could be tackled to improve the reliability of the assessment.

 Lack of market and flow data

In order to build a consistent life cycle model of the textiles consumed in Europe, it is necessary to
gather specific life cycle data for all textile products included in the model. This implies a strong need
for detailed information on product quantities, composition, and transportation flows. In order to
improve the model, improved statistical data are required in order to carry out the following items.
 Better integrate end products made of blended fibres and take into account relationships
between processes, quality and durability. No data was found to distinguish pure products
from blended ones and therefore it was not possible to include in the model some of their
specific characteristics, for instance related to processes, care habits, disposal routes.
 Improve the modelling of the end-of-life phase by better matching product characteristics
with disposal routes.
 Take into account that most life cycle processes take place in different locations. This
implies technological variability and complex transportation schemes of fibres, yarns,
intermediary or end products.

142
 Chapter 5

 Lack of environmental data

When performing an LCA, gathering reliable environmental data for the different life cycle steps is
often the most critical step. The following aspects could be further analysed and improved.
 For some fibres, e.g. hemp or silk, life cycle inventory data for production and processing
is very scarce. Extrapolation of data from common fibres such as cotton or polyester has
therefore been necessary. For more accuracy, more data for the production and processing
of these less widespread fibres would be required to ensure similar representativeness
between fibres. The lack of data for some fibres also imposed some simplifications in the
modelling of the end-of-life phase.
 The study highlights that the use phase is a key contributor to the environmental impacts of
the textile life cycle. In particular, detergents are responsible for a high share of
toxicological impacts. First of all, it should be kept in mind that, due to the complexity of
the mechanisms involved, some further development of the LCA indicators related to
toxicity is possible. Moreover, detergent formulations and formats (powder, liquid, tablet,
etc.) have evolved over the last few years but LCA data is scarce. More research in this
area is required.
 No environmental data was found to assess ‘closed loop’ recycling whereby recycled
fibres are used in the manufacture of new clothing. This would be an interesting issue to
investigate since it could bring more benefits than using textile waste to replace low
quality products such as cleaning rags as assumed in the model. Data on the end-of-life of
textiles is scarce, particularly for the various recycling routes.
 One of the key aspects of the textile industry is the dispersion of many actors in various
geographical areas. There is therefore a strong need for area-specific life cycle data in
order to improve the representativeness of the textile LCA model. Indeed, in order to
overcome this limitation, it is assumed that EU processes are representative of global
practices.

 Lack of social data

Individuals have a key role in determining the environmental impacts of the use phase of textiles. With
consideration to these aspects, reliable social data are needed in order to carry out the items listed
below.
 Improve the consideration of clothing reuse in the model. Indeed, benefits from reusing
clothes come from the fact that this may prevent the production of new clothes from virgin
materials. Investigating the substitution ratio between reused and new product is a key
element for improving the assessment of these potential benefits.
 Integrate in the model fashion effects, as it can have impacts on the textile lifetime.
 Improve the reliability of parameters such as washing temperature, drying method, ironing
or disposal practices which are ultimately decided by the individual consumer. An area of
improvement would thus be to differentiate consumer behaviour according to geographical
zones or to consumer profiles.

143
 References

REFERENCES
ADAS (2005) UK Flax and Hemp production: The impact of changes in support measures on the
competitiveness and future potential of UK fibre production and industrial use

ADAS, Centre for Sustainable Crop Management (2005) UK flax and hemp production: the impact on
the competitiveness and future potential of UK fibre production and industrial use. Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

Aehle W. (2004) Enzymes in industry: production and applications. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.
KGaA.

AFAA (2004) Global Uptake of GM Crops in 2003. Agrifood Awareness Australia. Bulletin report 5.

Allwood J. M., Laursen S. E. and Bocken C. M. (2006) Well dressed? - The present and future
sustainability of clothing and textiles in the United Kingdom. University of Cambridge Institute for
Manufacturing

Anderson K., Valenzuela E., Jackson L. A. (2006) Recent and Prospective Adoption of Genetically
Modified Cotton: A Global CGE Analysis of Economic Impacts. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper, No. 3917.

APEC (2008) Different Water Filtration Methods Explained [Online] Available at:
http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-education/quality-water-filtration-method.htm#Anchor-
Reverse-23240

Arias, J. M. C., (2003) Main minimisation criteria in textile bats, Power Point-Presentation,
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya

Asian Textile Journal (2004) A new size box shortens processing time. Asian Textile Journal, Vol. 13
Issue 1, p103-103

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe (undated) PlasticsEurope database [Online] Available

at: http://www.plasticseurope.org/Content/Default.asp?PageID=392

Baffes J. (2004) Cotton: Market Setting, Trade Policies, and Issues. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper 3218

Barber A. and Pellow G. (2006) Merino Wool – Life Cycle Assessment: New Zealand Merino
Industry. Total Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide Emissions. The AgriBusiness Group.

Berry J. (2002) The Effect of Income on Appliances in U.S. Households. Official energy statistics
from the U.S. government. Energy Information Administration. U.S.A.

Biermann T. W., and Grieve M. C. (1998) A computerized data base of mail order garments – a
contribution toward estimating the frequency of fibre types found in clothing. Forensic science
International. Vol 95:117-131

BIO (2005) Aide à la prise en compte de l’environnement dans la conception des articles textiles. BIO
Intelligence Service pour l’Institut Français du Textile et de l’Habillement.

BIO (2006) Impacts sur l’environnement des produits et services consommés en Europe. BIO
Intelligence Service.

BIO (2007a) Analyse de Cycle de Vie comparée d’une chemise en lin et d’une chemise en coton.
Organisations professionnelles du lin. BIO Intelligence Service.

145
References

BIO (2007b) Synthèse d’études environnementales sur des plastiques de différentes origines
(renouvelables et fossiles), BIOIS for Eco-Emballages

BIO (2008) Confidential study for an international textile manufacturer. BIO Intelligence Service.

BIO (2009) Reducing the Environmental Impact of Clothes Cleaning: Final Report to the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. EV0419. In press.

BioRegional (2004) Feasibility of Hemp Textile Production in the UK

Blackburn R. S. (2004), Life cycle analysis of cotton towels: impact of domestic laundering and
recommendations for extending periods between washing. Green Chemisty. Vol 6, G59 - G61

Boutin M.-P., Flamin C., Quinton S., Gosse G. (2005) Analyse du cycle de vie de compounds
thermoplastiques chargés fibres de chanvre et mur en béton chanvre banché sur ossature en bois.
INRA Lille, for the French Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

BTTG (1999a) Report 4: Textile Mass Balance and Product Life Cycles. Ref: S5471

BTTG (1999b) Report 5: Waste Minimisation and Best Practice. Ref: S5471 Dr. Harald Schönberger
Gottenheim
CECED (2003) 2nd CECED Unilateral Commitment on reducing energy consumption of domestic
washing machines (2002– 2008) Report for 2002 to the Commission of the European Communities

Celanese Acetate (2001) Complete Textile Glossary. Celanese Acetate LLC.

Chave P. (2001) The EU Water Framework Directive – An Introduction. IWA Publishing. United
Kingdom.

Collins M. and Aumônier S. (2002) Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment of Two Marks & Spencer plc
Apparel Products. Marks and Spencer Plc. Reference: 7815.

Colourage (1992) Vol 39(6):37

Cotton Incorporated (2000) Cotton's share Up in Men's and women's apparel gains posted across
categories

Cotton Incorporated (2001) Cotton's share in home fabrics market for year 2000 is highest recorded

Dahllöf L. (2004) Methodological Issues in the LCA Procedure for the Textile Sector - A case study
concerning fabric for a sofa. Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers Institute of Technology.
ESA-Report 2004:7.

Danish Co-operation for Environment and Development (“DANCED”, undated) Practical options that
have been implemented at textile factories to make them cleaner, reduce effluent and air emissions and
improve their processing times. DANCED Project office, c/o Pollution Research Group, Chemical
Engineering, University of Natal.

Dare 2B (2009) Store website. [Online] Available at: http://www.fr.dare2b.com/

Das S. (undated) Textile effluent treatment – A solution to the environmental pollution. [Online]
Available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/18627832/Textile-Effluent-Treatment

DEPA (1997) Environmental Assessment of Textiles (Environmental Project No. 369)

Devi M. R., Poornima N., and Guptan P. S. (2007) Bamboo - the natural, green and eco-friendly new-
type textile material of the 21st century. Journal of the Textile Association

146
 References

Ecobilan for EC (2009), Ecodesign of Laundry Dryers Preparatory studies for Ecodesign requirements
of Energy-using--Products (EuP) – Lot 16

École Nationale Supérieur des Arts et Industries Textiles (« ENSAIT », 2009) Personal
communication.

Entec (undated) Industrial effluent treatment, the total solution. [Online] Available at:
http://www.entecuk.co.uk/downloads/cs_indeff_p.pdf

Environmental Information Exchange (2009) Legislation. The Landfill Directive [Online] Available
at: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/eie/landfill.htm

ERM & AEA Technology (2005) Market Transformation Programme - Waste Clothing Textiles.

ERM (2002) Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment of Textile Recycling. Report completed for the
Salvation Army Trading Company Ltd by Environmental Research Management (ERM) Ltd.

ERM (2007) Mapping of Evidence on Sustainable Development Impacts that Occur in the Life Cycles
of Clothing. A research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) by Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Ltd.

Euratex (2008a) The E.U.’s External Trade in 2007. Bulletin 2/2008

Euratex (2008b) An in-depth analysis of the EU textile and clothing external trade 2006-2007. Bulletin
3/2008

Euro-CASE (2000) Freight Logistics and Transport Systems in Europe [Online] European Council of
Applied Sciences and Engineering.
Available at: http://www.euro-case.org/documents/Freight_FinalReport.pdf

European Commission (2003) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for the Textiles
Industry. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)

European Commission (2007a) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Production
of Polymers.

European Commission (2007b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and
the Council - Towards sustainable water management in the European Union - First stage in the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC.

European Commission (2008a) Commission Staff Working Document, Accompanying document to

the Revision of Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17
July 2000 on a revised Community eco-label award scheme, Impact Assessment

European Commission (2008b) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on a Community Ecolabel scheme. COM(2008) 401.

European Commission, Implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council with regards to Ecodesign requirements for households washing machines, Office Journal of
the European Union, 10th November 2010.

EUROPROMS (2009) Eurostat production and external trade database [Online], accessed 2010,
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/prodcom/introduction/europroms

Eurostat (2009) Quarterly Panorama of European business statistics. Eurostat.

Eurostat (2007), .EU-25 trade in textiles 2005,

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-063/EN/KS-SF-07-063-EN.PDF

147
References

Eyhorn F., Ramakrishnan M. and Mäder P. (2007) The viability of cotton-based organic farming
systems in India. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, (5):pp. 25-38.

Fisher T., Cooper T., Woodward S., Hiller A., and Goworek H. (2008) Public Understanding of
Sustainable Clothing: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Appendices)

Frischer K., Dascot M., Huc F. and Ohran F. (2005) Aide a la prise en compte de l’environnement
dans la conception des articles textiles.

Goedkoop M., Heijungs R., Huijbregts M., Schryver A., Struijs J., Zelm R., ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle
impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the
endpoint level

Hansen K. (2004) Helping or hindering? Controversies around the international second-hand trading
trade. Anthropology Today, 20(4), 3-9.

Hawley J. M. (2006), Digging for Diamonds: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Reclaimed
Textile Products. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol 24, p262

Hoyle M., Cresswell J. E. (2007) The effect of wind direction on cross-pollination in wind-pollinated
gm crops. Ecological Applications: Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 1234-1243.

Huang J., Hu R., Pray C., Qiao F., Rozelle S. (2003) Biotechnology as an alternative to chemical
pesticides: a case study of Bt cotton in China Agricultural Economics (29) 55–67.

Institute of Science in Society (“ISIS”, 2005) GM Cotton Fiascos around the World. [Online]
Available at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCFATW.php

International Trade Centre (2007) Organic Cotton: An Opportunity for Trade. UNCTAD/WTO.
IPSOS Habits and Practices Studies (2002 and 2007)

ITJ (2007) Importance of eco-friendly sizing. The Indian Textiles Journal.

Kalliala E. M., and Nousiainen P. (1999) Life Cycle Assessment - Environmental Profile of Cotton
and Polyester-Cotton Fabrics. AUTEX Research Journal Vol 1, No.1.

Kant C. K. (2007) Global apparel brands opt for organic cotton. Business Standard, Nov 26, 2009.
[Online] Available at: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/global-apparel-brands-opt-for-
organic-cotton/289417/

Kazakevičiūtė G., Valienė V., Abraitienė A. (2004) Reducing Pollution in Wet Processing of
Cotton/Polyester Fabrics, Environmental Research, engineering and management, No 2(28), p40-47.

Khan M. A., Iqbal M., Ahmad I., Soomro M. H. (2002) Economic Evaluation of Pesticide Use
Externalities in the Cotton Zones of Punjab, Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review. Vol 41,
Issue 4, pp683-698.

Knitting Industry (2008) Textile machinery shipment statistics for 2008 [Online] Available at:
http://www.knittingindustry.com/articles/459.php

Knitting Industry (2009) Strong interest in Shima’s technologically advanced machines at Shanghaitex
[Online] Available at: http://www.knittingindustry.com/articles/474.php

Lacasse K. and Baumann W. (2004), Textile Chemicals – Environmental Data and Facts. Springer.
Germany.

148
 References

Laursen S. E, Hansen J., Knudsen H. H., Wenzel H., Larsen H. F. and Kristensen F. M. (2007)
EDIPTEX – Environmental assessment of textiles. Working Report No. 24 2007

Ledent M. (2001) Technical and Ecological Aspects in the Use of Phosphonates as Auxiliaries in
Textile Treatments. Revista de Quimica Textil, Issue 154, p48.

Liberalato D. (2003) Prospect of Hemp Utilisation in the European Textile Industry. Non-Food Crops:
From Agriculture to Industry. International South Europe Symposium.

Lidyard A. M., Woodcock A., Noone P. (2008) Economic considerations from the exhaust application
of reactive dyes under ultra-low liquor ratio conditions. Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists
108 (11), pp. 501–504.

Maiorino L., Scalbi S., Tarantini M., Verità S. (2003) Life Cycle Assessment of viscose fabric in I02
company. Evaluation of the Effect of the IPPC Application on the Sustainable Waste Management in
Textile Industries. TM-108-003.

Marbek Resource Consultants (2001) Identification and Evaluation of Best Available Technologies
Economically Achievable (BATEA) for Textile Mill Effluents.

Martins S. B., Vascouto V. (2007) Challenges to present fashion consuming society and market
possibilities of organic cotton: a sustainable proposition. International Symposium on Sustainable
Design.

MIGA (2007) Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Environmental Guidelines for Textiles
Industry

Mowbray, J. (2002) A Quest for Ultimate Knitwear, Knitting International, Vol. 109 No. 1289, pp. 22-
24.

Nemecek T., Kägi T. (2007) Life Cycle Inventories of Swiss and European Agricultural Production
Systems. Final report ecoinvent 2.0, nº 15. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART,
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zürich and Dübendorf, CH, retrieved from
www.ecoinvent.ch

Nemry F., Leduc G., Mongelli I., Uihlein A. (2008a) Environmental Improvement of Passenger Cars
(IMPRO-car) EUR 23038 EN

Nemry F., Uihlein A., Colodel C. M., Wittstock B., Braune A., Wetzel C., Hasan I., Niemeier S.,
Frech Y., Kreißig J., Gallon N. (2008b) Environmental Improvement Potentials of Residential
Buildings (IMPRO-building) EUR 23493 EN

Nijdam D. S., and Wilting H. C. (2003) Milieudruk consumptie in beeld (Environmental load due to
private consumption) RIVM rapport 7714040004, Bilthoven, Netherlands, 78p (in Dutch)

Novozymes (2008) The Novozymes Report 2008.

O Ecotextiles (2009) Bamboo and the FTC [Online] Available at: http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/

OECD (2004) Environmental Exposure Assessment - Emission Scenario Document for Wool Fabric
Dyeing and Finishing Mills. ENV/JM/EEA(2004)8/1/REV

OECD Environmental Data Compendium 2006-2008, Waste

Oers L., Huijbregts M., Huppes G., Koning A., Suh S. (2001) LCA normalization factors for the
Netherlands, Europe and the World. RIZA werkdocument 2001.059.

149
References

OUVERTES project (2005) Report by textile reuse and recycling players on the status of the industry
in Europe [Online] Available at: http://www.textile-
recycling.org.uk/Report_Ouvertes_Project_June2005[1].pdf

P&G (2006) Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Ariel “Actif à froid” (2006), a laundry
detergent that allows to wash at colder wash temperatures, with previous Ariel laundry detergents
(1998, 2001)

Parikh D., Sawhney A., and Condon B. (2006) The Current Status of Size-Free Weaving Research at
USDA. International Conference on Composites Engineering Proceedings

Peterson J., Ekwall D. (2007), Production and business methods in the integral knitting supply chain,
AUTEX Research Journal, Vol. 8, No4, December 2007

Potting J and Blok K. (1995), Life-cycle covering assessment of four types of floor covering. Journal
of Cleaner Production, Vol 3, No 4, pp. 201-213

Presutto M., Faberi S., Scialdoni R., Cutaia L, Mebane W, Stamminger R and Suljug A (2007)
Preparatory Studies for EcoDesign Requirements of EuPs, Lot 14: Domestic Washing Machines and
Dishwashers, Tasks 3-5. ISIS.

Presutto M. (2009) Spinning speed of washing machines: an analysis of the trade-off with the
penetration and use of tumble dryers. Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lightning. Berlin
2009. http://www.eedal.eu/fileadmin/eedal2009/presentations/Washing_and_Drying/084_Presutto.pdf

Price Waterhouse Coopers (2007), Waste-Integrated Systems for Assessment of Recovery and
Disposal (WISARD). Available at http://www.ecobilan.com/uk_wisard.php

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009) Ecodesign of Laundry Dryers Preparatory studies for Ecodesign

requirements of Energy-using-Products (EuP) – Lot 16.

Purdew R. (2007) Sustainable agriculture in the semi-arid tropics: Agroforestry and the suitability of
bamboo

Qaim M., Zilberman D. (2003) Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries.
Science 299 (5608) pp. 900-902.

Remco (2008) Questions about Reverse osmosis [Online] Available at:

http://www.remco.com/ro_quest.htm

ILCD Handbook (2009) Requirements for environmental Impact Assessment Methods, models, and
indicators for LCIA. Draft document.

Reuters (2009) WRAPUP 1-Air freight down 20 pct, outlook grim. [Online] Available at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/AIRDEF/idUSLA5470520090710?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChan
nel=0&sp=true

Robinson G. D. (1996) High Speed Looms. Slashing Update, 3-4, p52 [Online] Available at:
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bVMtqyyS
7Ck63nn5Kx95uXxjL6vrVGtqK5It5a3UrCruEqylr9lpOrweezp33vy3%2b2G59q7Ra%2btsEy1qbBPt
q6khN%2fk5VXk6KR84LPyfOac8nnls79mpNfsVdK6xki0prNIsauvUbetrkuyrrI%2b5OXwhd%2fqu3
7z4uqM4%2b7y&hid=103

Rodrigue J. P., Slack B. and Notteboom T. (2006) The Geography of Transport Systems - Maritime
Transportation

150
 References

Rosenbaum R. K., Bachmann T. M., Gold L. S., Huijbregts M. A. J., Jolliet O., Juraske R., Koehler
A., Larsen H. F., MacLeod M., Margni M., McKone T. E., Payet J., Schuhmacher M., van de Meent
D., Hauschild M. Z. (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended
characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment.
International Journal of Life-Cycle Assessment 13, pp. 532-246.

Rug and carpets (2009) Synthetic Fiber Carpet

Sakharkhar C. H., Shaikh R. A., and Bharati R. N. (2003) Use of indigeneous acrylates in size
formulation. BTRA Scan, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p1-6.
Salvation Army. (2008) Why recycle? [Online] Available at: http://www.satradingco.org

Samanidou V., and Fytianos K. (1990) Mobilization of heavy metals from river sediments of Northern
Greece by complexing agent. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. Volume 52, Numbers 3-4, pp217-225.

Saouter E. and and van Hoof G. (2000) A database for the LCA of P&G laundry detergents.

Sára B., Di Giovannantonio S., Tarantini M. (2003) Life Cycle Assessment of viscose fabric in I04
company. Evaluation of the Effect of the IPPC Application on the Sustainable Waste Management in
Textile Industries. TM-108-005.

Sára B., Di Giovannantonio S., Tarantini M. (2004) Life Cycle Assessment of silk fabric in I15
company. Evaluation of the Effect of the IPPC Application on the Sustainable Waste Management in
Textile Industries. TM-108-006.

Sára B., Tarantini M. (2003) Life Cycle Assessment of silk- and charged silk yarn in I09 company.
Evaluation of the Effect of the IPPC Application on the Sustainable Waste Management in Textile
Industries. TM-108-004.

Sawhney A. P. S. , Sachinvala N. D., Calamari T. A., Dumitras P. G. , Bologa M. K. , and Singh K. V.

(2005) Approaches for reducing or eliminating warp sizing in weaving : an interim report. AATCC
review, Vol. 5 , no 9 , pp3-26.

Sawhney A., Kumar S., Sachinvala N., Brian C., and Pang S. S. (2006) The Current Status of Size-
Free Weaving Research at USDA . International Conference on Composites Engineering Proceedings.
pp831-832.

Sawhney A., Singh K., Sachinvala N., and Condon B. (2006) Size-free weaving of cotton fabric on a
modern high-speed weaving machine: A progress report. National Cotton Council Beltwide Cotton
Conference.
Sawhney P. (2008) The European Ecolabel: Opportunities for the textile industry of developing
countries

Sawhney, A. P. S., Singh K. V., Condon B., and Pang S. S. (2007) Size free weaving of a cotton fabric
on a modern high-speed weaving machine. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, pp2052-
2055.

Sawhney, A. P. S., Singh K. V., Condon B., Pang S. S., Hossain I., and Hohenschutz M. H. (2008) A
prototype yarn evaluation tester to rapidly assess comparative weavibility of warp yarn without
weaving. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, pp1926-1929.

Schäfer T., and Schönberger H. (2003) Best Available Techniques in Textile Industry. Environmental
Research of the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.
Research Report 200 94 329. UBA-FB 000325/e.

Seabury (2009) International Air Freight 2008-2013: Turbulence Ahead. Trade forecast 2009.

151
References

Sejri N., Harzallah O., Viallier P., Amar S. B., Nasrallah, and Sassi B. (2008) Influence of Pre-wetting
on the Characteristics of a Sized Yarn. Textile Research Journal, Vol. 78 Issue 4, p326-335.

Subrata D. (2000) Textile Effluent Treatment – A Solution to the Environmental Pollution [Online]
Available at: http://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-article/pdffiles/Textile-Effluent-
Treatment.pdf?PDFPTOKEN=709a0d279bb45f543ba777067d43d8ed8c89bf03|1253632944#PDFP

Swezey S. L., Goldman P., Bryer J., Nieto D. (2007) Six-year comparison between organic, IPM and
conventional cotton production systems in the Northern San Joaquin Valley, California. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems (2007), 22:30-40

Textile Recycling Association (2005) OUVERTES Project - Report by Textile Reuse and Recycling
Players on the Status of the Industry in Europe.

Ford J.,Textiles Magazine; Winter 1994, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p8

The Textile Institute (2002) Wool: Science and Technology. Ed. Simpson W S, Crawshaw G H.

TheSmartTime (2008) Textile Processing Guide - Singeing and desizing of cotton fabrics [Online]
Available at: http://www.thesmarttime.com/processing/singe-desize.htm

Thomas H. L. (1996) Surfactants and Ionic Salt Auxiliaries as Lubricating Agents in Warp Sizing.
Slashing Update. P 26

Thuermer (2009) 2009 State of Logistics: Air Cargo Demand Stalled [Online] Available at:
http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/CA6668932.html

Topten.info (2009) Best Products of Europe [Online] Available at: http://www.topten.info/

Transgen (2005) Gentechnisch veränderte Pflanzen: Anbauflächen weltweit – Baumwolle. Available

at http://www.transgen.de/anbau/eu_international/193.doku.html

Tukker A., Huppes G., Guinée J., Heijungs R., Koning A., Oers L., and Suh S. (2006) Environmental
Impact of Products (EIPRO) Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final
consumption of the EU-25. EUR 22248 EN

UNEP (2005) The trade and environmental effects of ecolabels: Assessment and response [Online]
Available at: http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/Ecolabelpap141005f.pdf

Uni-Sun Textile (2007) Environmentally Friendly Fabrics : BAMBOO. SFW07- Fashion-Tech

Solutions Conference.
Union des Industries Textiles, UIT (2009), Rapport annuel 2008-2009
http://www.textile.fr:81/uitfr/UIT_RA_2009.pdf

Van Berkel R. (1999) Building a Cleaner World: Cleaner Production, its role in Australia, lessons
from overseas, and its future applications. John Curtin International Institute: Think Tank Meeting 2
March 1999. [Online] Available at: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/13/12032.pdf.

van Zelm R., Huijbregts M. A. J., den Hollander H. A., van Jaarsveld H. A., Sauter F. J., Struijs F.,
van Wijnen H. J., van de Meent D. (2008) European characterisation factors for health human damage
of PM10 and ozone in life-cycle impact assessment. Atmospheric Environment 42 (2008), pp. 441–
453.

Vantreese V. (2001) Industrial Hemp: Legislative Briefing

Wegener Sleeswijk A., Van Oers L. F. C. M., Guinée J. B., Struijs J., Huijbregts M. A. J. (2008)
Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic
systems in the year 2000. Science of the Total Environment 390 (1): 227-240.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.09.040

152
 References

Weidema B. P., Wesnæs M., Hermansen J., Kristensen T., Halberg N., Eder P., Delgado L. (2008)
Environmental Improvement Potentials of Meat and Dairy Products. EUR 23491 EN.

Woolridge A. C., Ward G. D., Philips P. S., Collins M., Ganddy S. (2006) Life cycle assessment for
reuse/recycling of donated waste textiles compared to use of virgin material: An UK energy saving
perspective, Resources Conservation and Recycling 46 (2006) 94-103

Yang N. (2008) Fiber Industry Hit by Resource Shortage and Environmental Pressure. International
Fiber Journal, Vol. 23, Issue 4, p14-18.

153
 Annexes

ANNEXES
Four annexes are embodied in this chapter with the aim of providing with more detailed information
about the assumptions and the results of the study, as well as further technical specifications.

 Annex 1
 classification and breakdown by broad categories and fibre type for clothing textiles
 classification and breakdown by end product and fibre type for household textiles
 breakdown into total weights per end product and fibre type for clothing textiles
 breakdown into total weights per end product and fibre type for household textiles
 confection losses and user washing behaviour related to clothing textiles
 confection losses and user washing behaviour related to household textiles
 Annex 2
 normalisation of the environmental impacts of the textiles life cycle in the baseline
scenario
 Annex 3
 detailed results for maximum and minimum clothing weights
 detailed results for all the improvement options assessed in the study
 Annex 4
 glossary.

155
Annexes

Annex 1: Market data

This section presents the exhaustive list of assumptions that have been taken into account in the life cycle model as follows:
 classification and breakdown by broad categories and fibre type for clothing textiles
 classification and breakdown by end product and fibre type for household textiles
 breakdown into total weights per end product and fibre type for clothing textiles
 breakdown into total weights per end product and fibre type for household textiles
 confection losses and user washing behaviour related to clothing textiles
 confection losses and user washing behaviour related to household textiles.

 Classification and breakdown by broad categories (further disaggregated into end product categories) and fibre type for clothing textiles
   EU‐27 TOTALS   Process types  Breakdown of consumption (%) 

     

    
   (units or pairs)  Woven  Knitted  Waterproofing  WO  CO  SI  FL  VI  PA  PAC  PU/PP  PES 
TOPS                                       
T‐shirts, vests, singlets, etc.  3.8E+09    x    0  55  0  0  10  5  10  0  20 
Shirts or blouses (knitted or crocheted)  7.8E+08  x      0  62  0  0  18  1  3  0  16 
Shirts or blouses (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.1E+09    x    0  64  0  0  18  1  3  0  14 
Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. (cotton)  7.6E+08    x    0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. (MMF)  8.9E+08    x    0  0  0  0  10  11  75  0  4 
Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. (wool or fine animal hair)  2.8E+08    x    100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
UNDERWEAR, NIGHTWEAR AND HOSIERY                           
Briefs, panties, underpants, etc. (knitted or chrochetted)  2.7E+09    x    0  46  0  0  7  26  3  10  8 
Briefs, panties, underpants, etc. (excluding knitted or 
1.2E+08  x      0  46  0  0  7  26  3  10  8 
crocheted) 
Hosiery (knitted or crocheted)  6.4E+09    x    5  41  0  0  7  26  3  10  8 
Hosiery (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.5E+08    x    5  41  0  0  7  26  3  10  8 
Slips, petticoats and girdles (other)  6.2E+07  x      0  46  0  0  7  26  3  10  8 
Slips, petticoats and girdles (knitted or crocheted)  2.1E+07    x    0  46  0  0  7  26  3  10  8 
Slips, petticoats and girdles (excluding knitted or crocheted)  9.9E+06  x      0  46  0  0  7  26  3  10  8 
Brassieres  6.3E+08  x  x    0  23  0  0  7  24  0  12  34 

Percentage breakdown 
Nightwear (knitted or crocheted)  4.6E+08    x    0  83  0  0  4  5  0  0  8 
Nightwear (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.3E+08  x      0  83  0  0  4  5  0  0  8 
Negligees, bathrobes, dressing gowns, etc. (knitted or 
6.6E+07    x    0  80  0  0  3  5  0  0  12 
crocheted) 
Negligees, bathrobes, dressing gowns, etc. (excluding knitted 
Processes 

1.6E+07  x      0  80  0  0  3  5  2  0  10 

or crocheted) 
Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (cotton, knitted or 
1.1E+08    x    0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
crocheted) 

156
   EU‐27 TOTALS   Process types  Breakdown of consumption (%) 

     

    
   (units or pairs)  Woven  Knitted  Waterproofing  WO  CO  SI  FL  VI  PA  PAC  PU/PP  PES 
Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (excluding cotton, 
2.1E+07    x    100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
MMF, knitted or crocheted) 
Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (excluding knitted 
2.7E+07  x      0  46  0  0  7  26  3  10  8 
or crocheted) 
Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (other)  6.7E+06  x  x    0  46  0  0  7  26  3  10  8 
JACKETS                           
Anoraks, ski jackets, etc.  3.3E+08  x    x  0  10  0  0  0  30  0  0  60 
Anoraks, ski jackets, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  6.0E+07    x  x  0  10  0  0  0  30  0  0  60 
Jackets and blazers (knitted or crocheted)  7.9E+07    x    76  0  0  0  8  0  0  0  16 
Jackets and blazers (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.9E+08  x      76  0  0  0  8  0  0  0  16 
Jackets and blazers (cotton or MMF)  3.2E+07  x      0  22  0  0  0  0  10  0  68 
Raincoats  7.8E+07  x    x  0  0  0  0  5  45  0  0  50 
Overcoats, car coats, capes (other)  6.3E+07  x    x  32  5  0  0  0  5  33  0  25 
Overcoats, car coats, capes (knitted or crocheted)  3.6E+07    x  x  32  5  0  0  0  5  33  0  25 
BOTTOMS                           
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton, excluding denim)  4.2E+08  x      0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton, excluding denim, 
3.5E+08    x    0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
knitted or crocheted) 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton, excluding knitted 
7.7E+06  x      0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
or crocheted) 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (MMF, excluding knitted or 
1.0E+08  x      0  0  0  0  40  4  5  0  51 
crocheted) 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton or MMF)  1.0E+08  x      0  55  0  0  23  2  2  0  18 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (excluding knitted or 
3.5E+07  x      100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
crocheted) 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (excluding cotton, wool or 
1.1E+08    x    0  0  0  0  100  0  0  0  0 
fine animal hair, MMF, knitted or crocheted ) 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  5.6E+08    x    8  45  0  0  25  2  2  0  18 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (other)  3.1E+06  x      17  0  0  0  33  4  4  0  42 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (denim)  4.6E+08  x      0  96  0  0  0  0  0  0  4 
Shorts (MMF)  5.8E+07  x      0  0  0  0  40  5  5  0  50 
Shorts (cotton)  8.5E+07  x      0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Shorts (cotton and MMF)  9.1E+07  x      0  55  0  0  23  2  2  0  18 
Skirts (excluding knitted or crocheted)  3.1E+08  x      3  7  2  2  25  0  3  0  58 
Skirts (knitted or crocheted)  5.5E+07    x    3  9  0  0  25  1  3  1  58 
Skirts (excluding wool or fine animal hair, MMF, knitted or 
2.2E+08    x    0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
crocheted) 
DRESSES                           
Dresses (excluding knitted or crocheted)  2.1E+08  x      0  6  0  0  25  0  1  0  68 
Dresses (knitted or crocheted)  1.4E+08    x    0  6  0  0  25  0  1  0  68 
SWIMWEAR                           
Swimwear (knitted or crocheted)  2.2E+08    x    0  0  0  0  0  75  0  25  0 
Swimwear (excluding knitted or crocheted)  7.5E+07  x      0  0  0  0  0  75  0  25  0 
SPORTWEAR                           
Tracksuits  1.3E+08  x  x    0  26  0  0  9  26  0  7  32 

157
Annexes
   EU‐27 TOTALS   Process types  Breakdown of consumption (%) 

     

    
   (units or pairs)  Woven  Knitted  Waterproofing  WO  CO  SI  FL  VI  PA  PAC  PU/PP  PES 
Ski suits (knitted or crocheted)  1.8E+05    x  x  0  0  0  0  0  50  0  0  50 
Ski suits (excluding knitted or crocheted)  4.2E+06  x    x  0  0  0  0  0  50  0  0  50 
SUITS AND ENSEMBLES                           
Suits and ensembles (knitted or crocheted)  1.0E+08    x    75  0  0  0  6  0  2  0  17 
Suits and ensembles (excluding knitted or crocheted)  9.4E+07  x      75  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  24 
Suits and ensembles (cotton of MMF)  2.5E+07  x      0  5  0  0  20  0  5  0  70 
GLOVES                           
Gloves (knitted or crocheted)  1.2E+09    x    54  6  0  0  0  5  30  0  5 
Gloves (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.7E+08  x      54  6  0  0  0  5  30  0  5 
SCARVES, SHAWLS, TIES, ETC.                           
Scarves, shawls, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  3.5E+07    x    75  15  5  0  0  0  5  0  0 
Scarves, shawls, etc. (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.8E+07  x      75  15  5  0  0  0  5  0  0 
Scarves, shawls, etc. (excluding articles of silk or silk waste, 
2.2E+08    x    65  25  0  0  0  0  10  0  0 
knitted or crocheted) 
Ties, bow ties and cravats (excluding knitted or crocheted)  8.9E+07  x      0  0  77  0  0  0  0  0  23 
Ties, bow ties and cravats (excluding articles of silk or silk 
5.5E+07    x    0  0  0  0  12  0  0  0  88 
waste, knitted or crocheted) 

WO  Wool or other animal hair     Biermann et al., 1998 

CO  Cotton         

SI  Silk     Cotton Incorporated, 2000 

   
FL  Flax and ramie 
  Average figures provided by Ensait 
VI  Viscose 
 
PA  Polyamide (nylon)  Process chosen 
x 
PAC  Acrylic  
PU/PP  Polyurethane (Lycra Spandex)/polypropylene 
PES  Polyester 

158
 Classification and breakdown by end product and fibre type for household textiles
   Process types  Breakdown of consumption (%) 

  
EU‐27 TOTALS  Non‐
Woven  Knitted 

  
   (units or pairs) woven  WO   CO   FL  VI  PES  PU  PP  PA  PVC  PAC  FEA 
Articles of bedding                                              
Articles of bedding filled other than with feathers or down (including 
quilts and eiderdown comforters, cushions, pouffes, pillows; excluding  1.6E+08    x    0  10  2  0  60  10  0  13  5  0  0 
mattresses, sleeping bags)  
Articles of bedding of feathers or down (including quilts and eiderdown 
comforters, cushions, pouffes, pillows; excluding mattresses, sleeping  1.9E+07    x    0  20  2  0  10  0  0  0  0  0  68 
bags), in pairs/amounts 
Bed linens                                           
Bed linens of cotton (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  2.8E+08    x    0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Bed linens of woven textiles (excluding of cotton, flax or ramie), in kg  9.5E+07    x    0  0  0  60  37  0  0  3  0  0  0 
Bed linens of knitted or crocheted textiles   5.3E+07  x      0  38  0  32  30  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Bed linens of non‐woven synthetic fibres (excluding knitted or crocheted), 
8.1E+06      x  0  0  0  32  60  0  0  8  0  0  0 
in kg 
Bed linens of flax or ramie (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  1.0E+06    x    0  0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Blankets and travelling rugs                                           
Blankets and travelling rugs of synthetic fibres (excluding electric 
1.0E+08    x    0  0  0  0  20  0  0  28  0  52  0 
blankets), in pairs/amounts 

Percentage Breakdown 
Blankets (excluding electric blankets) and travelling rugs of textile 
materials (excluding of wool or fine animal hair, synthetic fibres), in  2.0E+07    x    0  60  40  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
pairs/amounts 

Processes 
Blankets and travelling rugs of wool or fine animal hair (excluding electric 
5.0E+06  x  x    100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
blankets), in pairs/amounts 
Floor cloths, dishcloths, dusters, etc.                                           
Floor‐cloths, dishcloths, dusters and similar cleaning cloths (excluding 
6.8E+07    x    0  11  0  18  31  0  18  22  0  0  0 
knitted or crocheted, articles of non‐woven textiles), in kg 
Floor‐cloths, dishcloths, dusters and similar cleaning cloths, of non‐woven 
3.8E+07      x  0  0  0  16  24  0  38  22  0  0  0 
textiles, in kg  
Curtains, blinds, etc.                                            
Curtains and interior blinds, curtain or bed valances, of woven materials, 
2 7.0E+08    x    0  35  0  0  59  0  0  6  0  0  0 
in m  
Curtains and interior blinds, curtain or bed valances, of knitted or 
2 9.2E+07  x      0  35  0  0  44  0  0  21  0  0  0 
crocheted materials, in m  
Curtains and interior blinds, curtain or bed valances, of non‐woven 
2.9E+07      x  0  29  0  0  51  0  0  20  0  0  0 
materials  
Floor coverings                                           
2
Tufted carpets and other tufted textile floor coverings , in m   6.5E+08      Tufted  0  0  0  0  24  0  22  48  0  6  0 
Needle felt carpets and other needle felt textile floor coverings (excluding 
2 1.9E+08      x  0  0  0  0  20  0  26  54  0  0  0 
tufted or flocked), in m  
Carpets and other textile floor coverings (excluding knotted, woven, 
2 1.6E+08  x      0  0  0  0  22  0  26  44  0  8  0 
tufted, needle felt), in m  
2
Knotted carpets and other knotted textile floor coverings, in m   2.1E+07      Knotted  44  16  2  0  20  0  0  10  0  8  0 
Kitchen and toilet linens                                           

159
Annexes
   Process types  Breakdown of consumption (%) 

  
EU‐27 TOTALS  Non‐
Woven  Knitted 

  
   (units or pairs) woven  WO   CO   FL  VI  PES  PU  PP  PA  PVC  PAC  FEA 
Kitchen and toilet linens, of terry towelling or similar terry fabrics of 
2.3E+08    x    0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
cotton, in kg 
Woven kitchen and toilet linens, of textiles (excluding terry towelling or 
3.7E+07    x    0  70  0  20  10  0  0  0  0  0  0 
similar terry fabrics of cotton), in kg 
Kitchen and toilet linens, of non‐woven synthetic fibres, in kg  1.9E+06      x  0  0  0  40  26  0  34  0  0  0  0 
Table linens                                           
Table linens of cotton (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  4.1E+07    x    0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Table linens of woven synthetic fibres and of other woven or non‐woven 
1.6E+07    x    0  0  0  33  37  0  0  24  6  0  0 
textiles (excluding of cotton, flax), in kg 
Table linens of flax (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  3.8E+06    x    0  0  100  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Table linens of knitted or crocheted textiles, in kg  3.5E+06  x      0  44  0  6  35  0  0  15  0  0  0 
Table linens of non‐woven synthetic fibres, in kg  2.7E+06      x  0  0  0  0  23  0  24  37  16  0  0 

WO  Wool or other animal hair 
CO  Cotton 
Own assumption
FL  Flax and ramie   
Cotton incorporated, 2001 
VI  Viscose 
 
PES  Polyester  Rugs and carpets, 2009 
PU  Polyurethane (Lycra Spandex)  Average figures provided by Ensait 
 
PP  Polypropylene 
x  Process chosen 
PA  Polyamide (nylon) 
PVC  Poly vinyl chloride  
PAC  Acrylic 
FEA  Feathers 

160
 Breakdown into total weights per end product and fibre type for clothing textiles
Specific  Weight (in g)  Total average weight  Total weight per fibre type (in 1000 tonnes) 
Product 
consumption  Avg  Min  Max  (in 1000 tonnes)  WO  CO  SI  FL  VI  PA  PAC  PU/PP  PES 
TOPS                             
T‐shirts, vests, singlets, etc.  3.8E+09  210  170  250  873.8  0  480.6 0  0  87.4  43.7  87.4  0  174.8 
Shirts or blouses (knitted or crocheted)  7.8E+08  197  93  225  167.8  0  104.0 0  0  30.2  1.7  5.0  0  26.8 
Shirts or blouses (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.1E+09  197  93  225  243.8  0  156.0 0  0  43.9  2.4  7.3  0  34.1 
Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. (cotton)  7.6E+08  575  250  900  476.2  0  476.2 0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. (MMF)  8.9E+08  575  250  900  556.8  0  0  0  0  55.7  61.3  417.6  0  22.3 
Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. (wool or fine animal hair)  2.8E+08  575  250  900  174.0  174.0 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
UNDERWEAR 
Briefs, panties, underpants, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  2.7E+09  125  25  150  365.0  0  167.9 0  0  25.6  94.9  11.0  36.5  29.2 
Briefs, panties, underpants, etc. (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.2E+08  125  25  150  16.6  0  7.6  0  0  1.2  4.3  0.5  1.7  1.3 
Hosiery (knitted or crocheted)  6.4E+09  60  20  100  420.0  21.0  172.2 0  0  29.4  109.2 12.6  42.0  33.6 
Hosiery (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.5E+08  60  20  100  9.7  0.5  4.0  0  0  0.7  2.5  0.3  1.0  0.8 
Slips, petticoats and girdles (other)  6.2E+07  100  50  150  6.8  0  3.1  0  0  0.5  1.8  0.2  0.7  0.5 
Slips, petticoats and girdles (knitted or crocheted)  2.1E+07  100  50  150  2.3  0  1.1  0  0  0.2  0.6  0.1  0.2  0.2 
Slips, petticoats and girdles (excluding knitted or crocheted)  9.9E+06  100  50  150  1.1  0  0.5  0  0  0.1  0.3  0  0.1  0.1 
Brassieres  6.3E+08  100  30  170  68.9  0  15.8  0  0  4.8  16.5  0  8.3  23.4 
Nightwear (knitted or crocheted)  4.6E+08  210  120  300  105.3  0  87.4  0  0  4.2  5.3  0  0  8.4 
Nightwear (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.3E+08  210  120  300  29.0  0  24.1  0  0  1.2  1.5  0  0  2.3 
Negligees, bathrobes, dressing gowns, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  6.6E+07  525  150  900  37.6  0  30.1  0  0  1.1  1.9  0  0  4.5 
Negligees, bathrobes, dressing gowns, etc. (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.6E+07  525  150  900  8.9  0  7.1  0  0  0.3  0.4  0.2  0  0.9 
Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (cotton, knitted or crocheted)  1.1E+08  163  25  300  20.3  0  20.3  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (excluding cotton, MMF, knitted or crocheted)  2.1E+07  163  25  300  3.6  3.6  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (excluding knitted or crocheted)  2.7E+07  163  25  300  4.7  0  2.2  0  0  0.3  1.2  0.1  0.5  0.4 
Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (other)  6.7E+06  163  25  300  1.2  0  0.5  0  0  0.1  0.3  0  0.1  0.1 
JACKETS 
Anoraks, ski jackets, etc.  3.3E+08  434  300  900  154.1  0  15.4  0  0  0  46.2  0  0  92.5 
Anoraks, ski jackets, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  6.0E+07  434  300  900  28.3  0  2.8  0  0  0  8.5  0  0  17.0 
Jackets and blazers (knitted or crocheted)  7.9E+07  700  300  1700 60.2  45.8  0  0  0  4.8  0  0  0  9.6 
Jackets and blazers (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.9E+08  700  300  1700 145.8  110.8 0  0  0  11.7  0  0  0  23.3 
Jackets and blazers (cotton or MMF)  3.2E+07  700  300  1700 24.2  0  5.3  0  0  0  0  2.4  0  16.5 
Raincoats  7.8E+07  600  500  800  50.7  0  0  0  0  2.5  22.8  0  0  25.3 
Overcoats, car coats, capes, other  6.3E+07  1500 780  2000 103.3  33.1  5.2  0  0  0  5.2  34.1  0  25.8 
Overcoats, car coats, capes (knitted or crocheted)  3.6E+07  1500 780  2000 58.5  18.7  2.9  0  0  0  2.9  19.3  0  14.6 

161
Annexes
Specific  Weight (in g)  Total average weight  Total weight per fibre type (in 1000 tonnes) 
Product 
consumption  Avg  Min  Max  (in 1000 tonnes)  WO  CO  SI  FL  VI  PA  PAC  PU/PP  PES 
BOTTOMS 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton, excluding denim)  4.2E+08  568  320  800  260.4  0  260.4 0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton, excluding denim, knitted or crocheted)  3.5E+08  568  320  800  217.0  0  217.0 0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton, excluding knitted or crocheted)  7.7E+06  568  320  800  4.7  0  4.7  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (MMF, excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.0E+08  568  320  800  64.3  0  0  0  0  25.7  2.6  3.2  0  32.8 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton or MMF)  1.0E+08  568  320  800  64.3  0  35.4  0  0  14.8  1.3  1.3  0  11.6 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (excluding knitted or crocheted)  3.5E+07  568  320  800  21.7  21.7  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (excluding cotton, wool or fine animal hair, MMF, knitted or crocheted ) 1.1E+08  568  320  800  65.7  0  0  0  0  65.7  0  0  0  0 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc (knitted or crocheted)  5.6E+08  568  320  800  344.7  27.6  155.1 0  0  86.2  6.9  6.9  0  62.0 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (other)  3.1E+06  568  320  800  1.9  0.3  0  0  0  0.6  0.1  0.1  0  0.8 
Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (denim)  4.6E+08  568  320  800  284.9  0  273.5 0  0  0  0  0  0  11.4 
Shorts (MMF)  5.8E+07  300  200  400  19.0  0  0  0  0  7.6  1.0  1.0  0  9.5 
Shorts (cotton)  8.5E+07  300  200  400  27.7  0  27.7  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Shorts (cotton and MMF)  9.1E+07  300  200  400  29.6  0  16.3  0  0  6.8  0.6  0.6  0  5.3 
Skirts (excluding knitted or crocheted)  3.1E+08  385  250  480  128.0  3.8  9.0  2.6  2.6  32.0  0  3.8  0  74.2 
Skirts (knitted or crocheted)  5.5E+07  385  250  480  22.9  0.7  2.1  0  0  5.7  0.2  0.7  0.2  13.3 
Skirts (excluding wool or fine animal hair, MMF, knitted or crocheted)  2.2E+08  385  250  480  90.5  0  90.5  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
DRESSED 
Dresses (excluding knitted or crocheted)  2.1E+08  1125 250  2000 256.9  0  15.4  0  0  64.2  0  2.6  0  174.7 
Dresses (knitted or crocheted)  1.4E+08  1125 250  2000 171.1  0  10.3  0  0  42.8  0  1.7  0  116.3 
SWIMWEAR 
Swimwear (knitted or crocheted)  2.2E+08  140  80  200  33.7  0  0  0  0  0  25.2  0  8.4  0 
Swimwear (excluding knitted or crocheted)  7.5E+07  140  80  200  11.4  0  0  0  0  0  8.6  0  2.9  0 
SPORTSWEAR 
Tracksuits  1.3E+08  475  380  600  65.9  0  17.1  0  0  5.9  17.1  0  4.6  21.1 
Ski suits (knitted or crocheted)  1.8E+05  1703 1400  2005 0.3  0  0  0  0  0  0.2  0  0  0.2 
Ski suits (excluding knitted or crocheted)  4.2E+06  1703 1400  2005 7.7  0  0  0  0  0  3.8  0  0  3.8 
SUITS AND ENSEMBLES 
Suits and ensembles (knitted or crocheted)  1.0E+08  921  790  1400 103.8  77.9  0  0  0  6.2  0  2.1  0  17.6 
Suits and ensembles (excluding knitted or crocheted)  9.4E+07  921  790  1400 94.5  70.9  0  0  0  0  0  0.9  0  22.7 
Suits and ensembles (cotton of MMF)  2.5E+07  921  790  1400 25.2  0  1.3  0  0  5.0  0  1.3  0  17.6 
GLOVES 
Gloves (knitted or crocheted)  1.2E+09  48  25  70  60.8  32.9  3.7  0  0  0  3.0  18.3  0  3.0 
Gloves (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.7E+08  55  25  70  9.9  5.3  0.6  0  0  0  0.5  3.0  0  0.5 
SCARVES, SHAWLS 

162
 Specific  Weight (in g)  Total average weight  Total weight per fibre type (in 1000 tonnes) 
Product 
consumption  Avg  Min  Max  (in 1000 tonnes)  WO  CO  SI  FL  VI  PA  PAC  PU/PP  PES 
Scarves, shawls, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  3.5E+07  121  65  176  4.6  3.4  0.7  0.2  0  0  0  0.2  0  0 
Scarves, shawls, etc. (excluding knitted or crocheted)  1.8E+07  121  65  176  2.4  1.8  0.4  0.1  0  0  0  0.1  0  0 
Scarves, shawls, etc. (excluding articles of silk or silk waste, knitted or crocheted)  2.2E+08  121  65  176  28.3  18.4  7.1  0  0  0  0  2.8  0  0 
Ties, bow ties and cravats (excluding knitted or crocheted)  8.9E+07  75  40  110  7.3  0  0  5.6  0  0  0  0  0  1.7 
Ties, bow ties and cravats (excluding articles of silk or silk waste, knitted or crocheted)  5.5E+07  75  40  110  4.5  0  0  0  0  0.5  0  0  0  4.0 

Estimation
WO  Wool or other animal hair     Weight data from Bhalla, 2005 
CO  Cotton 
SI  Silk 
FL  Flax and ramie 
VI  Viscose 
PA  Polyamide (nylon) 
PAC  Acrylic 
PU/PP  Polyurethane (Lycra Spandex) / Polypropylene 
PES  Polyester 

163
Annexes

 Breakdown into total weights per end product and fibre type for household textiles
Specific  Average weight  Total average weight   Total weight per fibre type (in 1000 tonnes) 
Product 
consumption  (in g)  (in 1000 tonnes)  WO   CO   FL  VI  PES  PU  PP  PA  PVC  PAC  FEA 
Articles of bedding  
Articles  of  bedding  filled  other  than  with  feathers  or  down 
(including  quilts  and  eiderdown  comforters,  cushions,  pouffes,  1.6E+08                           
pillows; excluding mattresses, sleeping bags) in pairs/amounts 
Articles  of  bedding  of  feathers  or  down  (including  quilts  and 
eiderdown  comforters,  cushions,  pouffes,  pillows;  excluding  1.9E+07  2000  310.1  0  31  6  0  186  31  0  40  16  0  0 
mattresses, sleeping bags), in pairs/amounts 
Bed linens 

Bed linens of cotton (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  2.8E+08      0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Bed  linens  of  woven  textiles  (excluding  of  cotton,  of  flax  or 
9.5E+07    281.4  0  281  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
ramie), in kg 
Bed linens of knitted or crocheted textiles, in kg  5.3E+07    94.7  0  0  0  57  35  0  0  3  0  0  0 
Bed  linens  of  non‐woven  synthetic  fibres  (excluding  knitted  or 
8.1E+06    53.3  0  20  0  17  16  0  0  0  0  0  0 
crocheted), in kg 
Bed linens of flax or ramie (excluding knitted or crocheted) in kg  1.0E+06    8.1                       

Blankets and travelling rugs 
Blankets and travelling rugs of synthetic fibres (excluding electric 
1.0E+08      0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
blankets), in pairs/amounts 
Blankets  (excluding  electric  blankets)  and  travelling  rugs  of 
textile  materials  (excluding  of  wool  or  fine  animal  hair,  of  2.0E+07  1150  117.0  0  0  0  0  23  0  0  33  0  61  0 
synthetic fibres), in pairs/amounts 
Blankets and travelling rugs of wool or fine animal hair (excluding 
5.0E+06  1150  22.8  0  14  9  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
electric blankets), in pairs/amounts 
Floor cloths, dishcloths, dusters, etc. 
Floor  cloths,  dishcloths,  dusters  and  similar  cleaning  cloths 
(excluding  knitted  or  crocheted,  articles  of  non‐woven  textiles),  6.8E+07      0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
in kg 
Floor  cloths,  dishcloths,  dusters  and  similar  cleaning  cloths,  of 
3.8E+07    68.4  0  8  0  12  21  0  12  15  0  0  0 
non‐woven textiles, in kg 
Curtains, blinds, etc. 
Curtains  and  interior  blinds,  curtain  or  bed  valances,  of  woven 
2 7.0E+08      0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
materials, in m  
Curtains and interior blinds, curtain or bed valances, of knitted or 
2 9.2E+07  458  321.9  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
crocheted materials, in m  
Curtains  and  interior  blinds,  curtain  or  bed  valances,  of  non‐
2 2.9E+07  458  42.1  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
woven materials, in m  
Floor coverings 

164
 Specific  Average weight  Total average weight   Total weight per fibre type (in 1000 tonnes) 
Product 
consumption  (in g)  (in 1000 tonnes)  WO   CO   FL  VI  PES  PU  PP  PA  PVC  PAC  FEA 
2
Tufted carpets and other tufted textile floor coverings, in m   6.5E+08      0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Needle  felt  carpets  and  other  needle  felt  textile  floor  coverings 
2 1.9E+08  1185  771.1  0  0  0  0  185  0  170  370  0  46  0 
(excluding tufted or flocked), in m  
Carpets  and  other  textile  floor  coverings  (excluding  knotted, 
2 1.6E+08  400  77.3  0  0  0  0  15  0  20  42  0  0  0 
woven, tufted, needle felt), in m  
2
Knotted carpets and other knotted textile floor coverings, in m   2.1E+07  1185  190.6  0  0  0  0  42  0  50  84  0  15  0 

Kitchen and toilet linens 
Kitchen and toilet linens, of terry towelling or similar terry fabrics 
2.3E+08      0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
of cotton, in kg 
Woven  kitchen  and  toilet  linens,  of  textiles  (excluding  terry 
3.7E+07    226.2  0  226  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
towelling or similar terry fabrics of cotton), in kg 
Kitchen and toilet linens, of non‐woven synthetic fibres, in kg  1.9E+06    37.4  0  26  0  7  4  0  0  0  0  0  0 

Table linens 

Table linens of cotton (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  4.1E+07      0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
Table  linens  of  woven  synthetic  fibres  and  of  other  woven  or 
1.6E+07    40.8  0  41  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 
non‐woven textiles (excluding of cotton, of flax) in kg 
Table linens of flax (excluding knitted or crocheted) in kg  3.8E+06    16.3  0  0  0  5  6  0  0  4  1  0  0 

Table linens of knitted or crocheted textiles, in kg  3.5E+06    3.8  0  0  4  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 

Table linen of non‐woven synthetic fibres, in kg  2.7E+06    3.5                       

WO  Wool or other animal hair 
CO  Cotton 
Estimation 
FL  Flax and ramie 
VI  Viscose 
PES  Polyester 
PU  Polyurethane (Lycra Spandex) 
PP  Polypropylene 
PA  Polyamide (nylon) 
PVC  Poly vinyl chloride  
PAC  Acrylic 
FEA  Feathers 

165
Annexes

 Confection losses and user washing behaviour related to clothing textiles

Lifetime 
Ratio machine  Ratio dry/wash  Ironing time (in  Confection 
PRODUCT  Number of  Ratio iron/wash 
wash/handwash in %  minutes)  losses in % 
washes 
TOPS 

T‐shirts, vests, singlets, etc.  50  100  25  100  3  13 

Shirts or blouses (knitted or crocheted)  25  100  25  100  3  13 

Shirts or blouses (excluding knitted or crocheted)  25  100  25  100  3  13 

Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. (cotton)  50  100  25  100  3  10 

Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. (MMF)  50  100  25  100  3  10 

Jerseys, jumpers, pullovers, etc. (wool or fine animal hair)  50  100  25  0  1  10  

UNDERWEAR, NIGHTWEAR AND HOSIERY 

Briefs, panties, underpants, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  104  100  25  0  1  16 

Briefs, panties, underpants, etc. (excluding knitted or crocheted)  104  100  25  0  3  16 

Hosiery (knitted or crocheted)  104  100  0  0  0  0 

Hosiery (excluding knitted or crocheted)  104  100  0  0  0  0 

Slips, petticoats and girdles (other)  104  100  25  0  1  18 

Slips, petticoats and girdles (knitted or crocheted)  104  100  25  0  1  18 

Slips, petticoats and girdles (excluding knitted or crocheted)  104  100  25  0  1  18 

Brassieres  40  100  0  0  0  18 

Nightwear (knitted or crocheted)  50  100  25  0  6  13 

Nightwear (excluding knitted or crocheted)  50  100  25  0  6  13 

Negligees, bathrobes, dressing gowns, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  24  100  0  0  6  15 

Negligees, bathrobes, dressing gowns, etc. (excluding knitted or crocheted)  24  100  0  0  10  15 

Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (cotton, knitted or crocheted)  52  100  25  0  6  18 

Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (excluding cotton, MMF, knitted or crocheted)  52  100  25  0  6  18 

Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (excluding knitted or crocheted)  52  100  25  0  4  18 

Other underwear, nightwear and hosiery (other)  52  100  25  0  4  18 

JACKETS 

166
 Lifetime 
Ratio machine  Ratio dry/wash  Ironing time (in  Confection 
PRODUCT  Number of  Ratio iron/wash 
wash/handwash in %  minutes)  losses in % 
washes 
Anoraks, ski jackets, etc.  10  100  25  0  0  12 

Anoraks, ski jackets, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  10  100  25  0  0  12 

Jackets and blazers (knitted or crocheted)  40  100  25  0  3  16 

Jackets and blazers (excluding knitted or crocheted)  40  100  25  0  5  16 

Jackets and blazers (cotton or MMF)  40  100  25  0  5  16 

Raincoats  0  0  0  0  0  14 

Overcoats, car coats, capes (other )  1  0  0  0  3  14 

Overcoats, car coats, capes (knitted or crocheted)  1  0  0  0  3  14 

BOTTOMS 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton, excluding denim)  92  100  25  100  6  14 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton, excluding denim, knitted or crocheted)  92  100  25  100  3  14 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton, excluding knitted or crocheted)  92  100  25  100  6  14 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (MMF, excluding knitted or crocheted)  92  100  25  100  3  14 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (cotton or MMF)  92  100  25  100  6  14 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (excluding knitted or crocheted)  92  100  25  100  6  14 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (excluding cotton, wool or fine animal hair, MMF, knitted or crocheted )  92  100  25  100  3  14 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  92  100  25  100  3  14 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (other)  92  100  25  100  3  14 

Trousers, breeches, overalls, etc. (denim)  92  100  25  100  6  14 

Shorts (MMF)  24  100  25  100  3  15 

Shorts (cotton)  24  100  25  100  6  15 

Shorts (cotton and MMF)  24  100  25  100  3  15 

Skirts (excluding knitted or crocheted)  24  100  25  100  3  14 

Skirts (knitted or crocheted)  24  100  25  100  6  14 

Skirts (excluding wool or fine animal hair, MMF, knitted or crocheted)  24  100  25  100  3  14 

DRESSES 

167
Annexes

Lifetime 
Ratio machine  Ratio dry/wash  Ironing time (in  Confection 
PRODUCT  Number of  Ratio iron/wash 
wash/handwash in %  minutes)  losses in % 
washes 
Dresses (excluding knitted or crocheted)  15  100  0  100  6  18 

Dresses (knitted or crocheted)  15  100  0  100  3  18 

SWIMWEAR 

Swimwear (knitted or crocheted)  0  0  0  0  0  18 

Swimwear (excluding knitted or crocheted)  0  0  0  0  0  18 

SPORTWEAR 

Tracksuits  24  100  0  0  6  15 

Ski suits (knitted or crocheted)  6  100  0  0  0  14 

Ski suits (excluding knitted or crocheted)  6  100  0  0  0  14 

SUITS AND ENSEMBLES 

Suits and ensembles (knitted or crocheted)  40  100  0  100  3  14 

Suits and ensembles (excluding knitted or crocheted)  40  100  0  100  3  14 

Suits and ensembles (cotton of MMF)  40  100  0  100  3  14 

GLOVES 

Gloves (knitted or crocheted)  4  100  0  0  0  18 

Gloves (excluding knitted or crocheted)  4  100  0  0  0  18 

SCARVES, SHAWLS, TIES, ETC. 

Scarves, shawls, etc. (knitted or crocheted)  12  0  0  0  1  4 

Scarves, shawls, etc. (excluding knitted or crocheted)  12  0  0  0  4  4 

Scarves, shawls, etc. (excluding articles of silk or silk waste, knitted or crocheted)  12  0  0  0  1  4 

Ties, bow ties and cravats (excluding knitted or crocheted)  0  0  0  0  4  5 

Ties, bow ties and cravats (excluding articles of silk or silk waste, knitted or crocheted)  0  0  0  0  2  5 

Laursen et al., 2007 
Allwood et al., 2006 
Own estimate 
Collins & Aumônier, 2002 

168
 Confection losses and user washing behaviour related to household textiles
Lifetime  Ratio 

machine  Ratio dry/wash  Ratio iron/wash  Ironing time (in  Confection 

 PRODUCT  Number of 
wash/handwash  in %  in %  minutes)  losses (in %) 
washes 
in % 

ARTICLES OF BEDDING 
Articles of bedding filled other than with feathers or down (including quilts and eiderdown comforters, cushions, 
10  100  80  0  0  4 
pouffes, pillows; excluding mattresses, sleeping bags)  
Articles of bedding of feathers or down (including quilts and eiderdown comforters, cushions, pouffes, pillows; excluding 
30  100  80  0  0  4 
mattresses, sleeping bags), in pairs/amounts 
BED LINENS 

Bed linens of cotton (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  80  100  100  100  10  3 

Bed linens of woven textiles (excluding of cotton, of flax or ramie) in kg  80  100  100  100  10  3 

Bed linens of knitted or crocheted textiles   80  100  20  0  10  3 

Bed linens of non‐woven synthetic fibres (excluding knitted or crocheted; in kg  80  100  100  100  10  3 

Bed linens of flax or ramie (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  80  100  100  100  10  3 

BLANKETS AND TRAVELLING RUGS 

Blankets and travelling rugs of synthetic fibres (excluding electric blankets), in pairs/amounts  100  100  20  0  0  3 

Blankets (excluding electric blankets) and travelling rugs of textile materials (excluding wool or fine animal hair, of 
100  100  20  0  0  3 
synthetic fibres), in pairs/amounts 
Blankets and travelling rugs of wool or fine animal hair (excluding electric blankets), in pairs/amounts  100  100  0  0  0  3 

FLOOR CLOTHS, DISHCLOTHS, DUSTERS, ETC. 
Floor cloths, dishcloths, dusters and similar cleaning cloths (excluding knitted or crocheted, articles of non‐woven 
100  100  45  100  3  5  
textiles), in kg 
Floor cloths, dishcloths, dusters and similar cleaning cloths, of non‐woven textiles, in kg   100  100  45  100  3  5 

CURTAINS, BLINDS, ETC.  
2
Curtains and interior blinds, curtain or bed valances, of woven materials, in m   20  100  45  100  10  3 
2
Curtains and interior blinds, curtain or bed valances, of knitted or crocheted materials, in m   20  100  45  100  10  3 

Curtains and interior blinds, curtain or bed valances, of non‐woven materials   20  100  45  100  10  3 

FLOOR COVERINGS 
2
Tufted carpets and other tufted textile floor coverings, in m   0  0  0  0  0  0 
2
Needle felt carpets and other needle felt textile floor coverings (excluding tufted or flocked), in m   0  0  0  0  0  0 

169
Annexes

Lifetime  Ratio 

machine  Ratio dry/wash  Ratio iron/wash  Ironing time (in  Confection 

 PRODUCT  Number of 
wash/handwash  in %  in %  minutes)  losses (in %) 
washes 
in % 
2
Carpets and other textile floor coverings (excluding knotted, woven, tufted, needle felt), in m   0  0  0  0  0  0 
2
Knotted carpets and other knotted textile floor coverings, in m   0  0  0  0  0  0 

KITCHEN AND TOILET LINENS 

Kitchen and toilet linens of terry towelling or similar terry fabrics of cotton, in kg  100  100  0  0  0  5 

Woven kitchen and toilet linens of textiles (excluding terry towelling or similar terry fabrics of cotton), in kg  100  100  0  0  0  5 

Kitchen and toilet linens of non‐woven synthetic fibres, in kg  100  100  0  0  0  5 

TABLE LINENS 

Table linens of cotton (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  25  100  0  100  10  9 

Table linens of woven synthetic fibres and of other woven or non‐woven textiles (excluding of cotton, of flax), in kg  25  100  0  100  10  9 

Table linens of flax (excluding knitted or crocheted), in kg  25  100  0  100  10  9 

Table linens of knitted or crocheted textiles, in kg  25  100  0  100  10  9 

Table linens of non‐woven synthetic fibres, in kg  25  100  0  100  10  9 

Laursen et al., 2007. 
Own estimate. 
RCSC (2004) Life cycle analysis of cotton towels. 

170
 Annex 2: Normalisation of the environmental impacts
of the textile life cycle for the baseline scenario
According to the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards, the results of an LCA study can be normalised
by benchmark values and referred to a common unit with the aim of easing their interpretation.
In this study, the environmental impacts of the textiles life cycle are normalised to 'inhabitant
equivalents' (Wegener et al., 2008). One 'inhabitant equivalent' corresponds to the yearly
environmental impact of one ‘average’ citizen of a given geographic area with respect to a given
indicator. A global geographical scale was considered in this study.

Figure 58 presents the normalised indicators for the baseline scenario. Natural land transformation,
toxicity-related indicators and freshwater eutrophication appear as the most critical indicators of the
system modelled. This is due to the important impacts of detergent use and fibre cultivation. It should
however be noted that the normalisation scores, which are used as a reference basis, are calculated
taking into account for a limited number of flows at the macroscopic level (national/regional
inventories). This tends to overestimate normalised results, especially when more flows are included
in the LCA model than in the reference score, which is particularly true, for example, for indicators
related to toxicity. Considering the uncertainty related to the normalisation procedure, results from
Figure 58 should be thus interpreted with care.

800
Millions

700

600
Inhabitant equivalent

500

400

300

200

100

Source: UN, January 2009 
Figure 58: Impacts of textile consumption in the EU-27, midpoint indicators, normalised with respect to
the estimated burdens generated by an 'average' citizen of the world. EU-27 population: 499.8
million
.

171
 Annex 3: Detailed results
CLOTHING MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM WEIGHTS
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
MIDPOINTS
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
ENDPOINTS
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Ressource availability
172
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
maximum weights
maximum weights
maximum weights
maximum weights
maximum weights
minimum weights
minimum weights
minimum weights
minimum weights
minimum weights
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 1.42E+11 ‐33.5 2.86E+11 33.9 2.07E+10 1.22E+10 ‐41.2 2.92E+10 40.9 1.85E+11 1.33E+11 ‐28.2 2.28E+11 23.3 ‐6.38E+09 ‐3.23E+09 ‐49.4 ‐9.51E+09 49.0 4.13E+11 2.83E+11 ‐31.3 5.33E+11 29.3
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.07E+04 ‐35.0 2.21E+04 34.1 2.63E+03 1.54E+03 ‐41.4 3.70E+03 41.0 1.04E+04 7.25E+03 ‐30.0 1.29E+04 24.9 ‐3.48E+01 1.14E+01 ‐132.6 ‐8.41E+01 141.3 2.94E+04 1.95E+04 ‐33.7 3.86E+04 31.3
5.21E+08 3.45E+08 ‐33.8 6.99E+08 34.2 1.27E+08 7.47E+07 ‐41.3 1.79E+08 40.9 4.47E+08 3.15E+08 ‐29.6 5.56E+08 24.5 ‐7.60E+06 ‐2.88E+06 ‐62.1 ‐1.23E+07 61.5 1.09E+09 7.31E+08 ‐32.8 1.42E+09 30.8
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 1.74E+08 ‐34.0 3.54E+08 34.5 3.74E+07 2.20E+07 ‐41.2 5.27E+07 40.8 2.60E+08 1.85E+08 ‐29.0 3.23E+08 24.0 ‐8.36E+06 ‐4.17E+06 ‐50.1 ‐1.25E+07 49.4 5.52E+08 3.76E+08 ‐31.9 7.17E+08 29.8
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 5.37E+10 ‐32.7 1.08E+11 35.6 1.20E+09 7.02E+08 ‐41.6 1.70E+09 41.2 1.14E+11 8.46E+10 ‐26.0 1.39E+11 21.3 ‐6.04E+09 ‐3.20E+09 ‐47.1 ‐8.84E+09 46.4 1.89E+11 1.36E+11 ‐28.2 2.40E+11 26.7
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 5.59E+08 ‐34.3 1.15E+09 34.6 1.12E+08 6.61E+07 ‐41.1 1.58E+08 40.8 7.47E+08 5.37E+08 ‐28.1 9.20E+08 23.2 ‐2.72E+07 ‐1.37E+07 ‐49.5 ‐4.05E+07 48.9 1.68E+09 1.15E+09 ‐31.7 2.18E+09 29.7
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 8.16E+09 ‐34.6 1.69E+10 35.4 4.43E+08 2.58E+08 ‐41.7 6.26E+08 41.3 6.35E+10 4.01E+10 ‐36.7 8.30E+10 30.9 ‐5.68E+08 ‐2.97E+08 ‐47.8 ‐8.36E+08 47.2 7.58E+10 4.83E+10 ‐36.3 9.97E+10 31.5
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 5.92E+08 ‐37.3 1.24E+09 31.7 1.91E+06 1.12E+06 ‐41.4 2.69E+06 41.0 1.44E+08 9.00E+07 ‐37.3 1.89E+08 31.4 ‐9.83E+05 ‐5.15E+05 ‐47.6 ‐1.44E+06 46.9 1.09E+09 6.82E+08 ‐37.3 1.43E+09 31.6
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.06E+09 ‐36.8 2.22E+09 31.6 1.24E+07 7.24E+06 ‐41.8 1.76E+07 41.4 5.64E+09 3.45E+09 ‐38.8 7.48E+09 32.6 ‐7.13E+06 ‐3.73E+06 ‐47.7 ‐1.05E+07 47.1 7.33E+09 4.52E+09 ‐38.3 9.71E+09 32.4
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 2.44E+08 ‐35.1 5.04E+08 34.1 2.32E+07 1.36E+07 ‐41.4 3.28E+07 41.0 1.28E+09 8.13E+08 ‐36.7 1.68E+09 30.8 ‐1.18E+07 ‐6.17E+06 ‐47.5 ‐1.73E+07 46.9 1.67E+09 1.06E+09 ‐36.4 2.20E+09 31.6
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 7.05E+09 ‐35.6 1.48E+10 35.4 2.13E+08 1.21E+08 ‐43.1 3.04E+08 42.7 2.19E+10 1.43E+10 ‐34.8 2.83E+10 29.1 ‐3.74E+08 ‐1.97E+08 ‐47.3 ‐5.48E+08 46.6 3.27E+10 2.13E+10 ‐35.0 4.28E+10 31.1
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 4.84E+10 ‐33.7 9.78E+10 34.0 7.21E+09 4.23E+09 ‐41.3 1.02E+10 40.9 5.70E+10 4.06E+10 ‐28.8 7.06E+10 23.8 ‐2.48E+09 ‐1.33E+09 ‐46.2 ‐3.61E+09 45.6 1.35E+11 9.19E+10 ‐31.8 1.75E+11 29.8
m3 5.77E+09 3.65E+09 ‐36.7 7.92E+09 37.2 3.76E+07 2.19E+07 ‐41.8 5.32E+07 41.4 8.57E+09 5.38E+09 ‐37.3 1.13E+10 31.3 ‐6.00E+07 ‐3.13E+07 ‐47.8 ‐8.83E+07 47.2 1.43E+10 9.02E+09 ‐37.0 1.91E+10 33.6
kg P eq 4.95E+07 3.12E+07 ‐37.0 6.51E+07 31.5 1.09E+05 6.29E+04 ‐42.4 1.55E+05 42.0 7.94E+06 5.15E+06 ‐35.1 1.03E+07 29.4 ‐1.04E+05 ‐5.18E+04 ‐50.0 ‐1.55E+05 49.3 5.74E+07 3.63E+07 ‐36.8 7.54E+07 31.2
kg N eq 3.42E+08 2.18E+08 ‐36.4 4.62E+08 35.1 1.39E+07 8.17E+06 ‐41.2 1.96E+07 40.9 5.72E+07 3.96E+07 ‐30.7 7.18E+07 25.5 8.65E+06 6.07E+06 ‐29.8 1.12E+07 29.4 4.22E+08 2.71E+08 ‐35.6 5.65E+08 33.8
m2a 8.12E+10 5.03E+10 ‐38.0 1.08E+11 32.9 3.47E+07 2.02E+07 ‐41.9 4.91E+07 41.5 3.72E+09 2.62E+09 ‐29.5 4.64E+09 24.5 ‐1.42E+08 ‐7.54E+07 ‐47.1 ‐2.09E+08 46.5 8.48E+10 5.29E+10 ‐37.6 1.12E+11 32.5
m2a 9.39E+08 5.97E+08 ‐36.5 1.28E+09 36.0 8.97E+07 5.19E+07 ‐42.1 1.27E+08 41.7 1.03E+09 7.17E+08 ‐30.7 1.30E+09 25.5 ‐3.32E+07 ‐1.74E+07 ‐47.5 ‐4.88E+07 46.8 2.03E+09 1.35E+09 ‐33.6 2.65E+09 30.7
m2 7.58E+07 4.77E+07 ‐37.1 1.03E+08 36.0 1.03E+07 6.07E+06 ‐41.2 1.46E+07 40.8 2.81E+07 1.97E+07 ‐30.0 3.51E+07 24.9 ‐1.07E+06 ‐5.80E+05 ‐45.9 ‐1.56E+06 45.3 1.13E+08 7.29E+07 ‐35.6 1.51E+08 33.6
DALY 3.77E+05 2.50E+05 ‐33.7 5.06E+05 34.1 3.91E+04 2.29E+04 ‐41.2 5.50E+04 40.9 3.73E+05 2.63E+05 ‐29.4 4.64E+05 24.3 ‐1.16E+04 ‐5.86E+03 ‐49.5 ‐1.73E+04 49.0 7.77E+05 5.31E+05 ‐31.7 1.01E+06 29.5
species.yr 5.74E+03 3.61E+03 ‐37.0 7.73E+03 34.8 1.82E+02 1.07E+02 ‐41.3 2.56E+02 40.9 2.12E+03 1.46E+03 ‐31.1 2.67E+03 25.9 ‐5.44E+01 ‐2.76E+01 ‐49.3 ‐8.09E+01 48.9 7.98E+03 5.15E+03 ‐35.5 1.06E+04 32.5
$ 1.18E+12 7.80E+11 ‐33.7 1.58E+12 34.0 1.16E+11 6.80E+10 ‐41.3 1.63E+11 40.9 9.18E+11 6.54E+11 ‐28.8 1.14E+12 23.9 ‐3.99E+10 ‐2.15E+10 ‐46.2 ‐5.81E+10 45.6 2.17E+12 1.48E+12 ‐31.8 2.82E+12 29.8
IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS
 Organic and GM cotton cultivation

Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline
Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario
Organic cotton

Organic cotton

Organic cotton

Organic cotton

Organic cotton
GM cotton

GM cotton

GM cotton

GM cotton

GM cotton
Indicator

Unit

Climate change kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.16E+11 1.2 2.11E+11 ‐1.1 2.07E+10 2.07E+10 0.0 2.07E+10 0.0 1.85E+11 1.85E+11 0.0 1.85E+11 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.13E+11 4.15E+11 0.6 4.10E+11 ‐0.6
Ozone depletion kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.66E+04 0.9 1.63E+04 ‐1.1 2.63E+03 2.63E+03 0.0 2.63E+03 0.0 1.04E+04 1.04E+04 0.0 1.04E+04 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.94E+04 2.96E+04 0.5 2.92E+04 ‐0.6
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 5.21E+08 5.33E+08 2.4 5.09E+08 ‐2.2 1.27E+08 1.27E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 4.47E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.09E+09 1.10E+09 1.1 1.08E+09 ‐1.1
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.70E+08 2.7 2.57E+08 ‐2.6 3.74E+07 3.74E+07 0.0 3.74E+07 0.0 2.60E+08 2.60E+08 0.0 2.60E+08 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.52E+08 5.59E+08 1.3 5.46E+08 ‐1.2
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 7.99E+10 0.1 7.97E+10 ‐0.3 1.20E+09 1.20E+09 0.0 1.20E+09 0.0 1.14E+11 1.14E+11 0.0 1.14E+11 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.89E+11 0.0 1.89E+11 ‐0.1
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.81E+08 3.5 8.23E+08 ‐3.3 1.12E+08 1.12E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 7.47E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.68E+09 1.71E+09 1.8 1.65E+09 ‐1.7
Human toxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.21E+10 ‐2.8 1.21E+10 ‐3.2 4.43E+08 4.43E+08 0.0 4.43E+08 0.0 6.35E+10 6.35E+10 0.0 6.35E+10 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.55E+10 ‐0.5 7.54E+10 ‐0.5
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 1.27E+08 ‐86.5 4.53E+08 ‐52.0 1.91E+06 1.91E+06 0.0 1.91E+06 0.0 1.44E+08 1.44E+08 0.0 1.44E+08 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 2.72E+08 ‐75.0 5.97E+08 ‐45.1
MIDPOINTS

Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.06E+09 ‐37.0 1.11E+09 ‐34.4 1.24E+07 1.24E+07 0.0 1.24E+07 0.0 5.64E+09 5.64E+09 0.0 5.64E+09 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 6.71E+09 ‐8.5 6.75E+09 ‐7.9
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.42E+08 ‐9.1 3.34E+08 ‐11.0 2.32E+07 2.32E+07 0.0 2.32E+07 0.0 1.28E+09 1.28E+09 0.0 1.28E+09 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.64E+09 ‐2.0 1.63E+09 ‐2.5
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.12E+10 2.0 1.07E+10 ‐1.9 2.13E+08 2.13E+08 0.0 2.13E+08 0.0 2.19E+10 2.19E+10 0.0 2.19E+10 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.29E+10 0.7 3.25E+10 ‐0.6
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.35E+10 0.6 7.25E+10 ‐0.7 7.21E+09 7.21E+09 0.0 7.21E+09 0.0 5.70E+10 5.70E+10 0.0 5.70E+10 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.35E+11 1.35E+11 0.3 1.34E+11 ‐0.4
Water depletion m3 5.77E+09 5.78E+09 0.3 5.75E+09 ‐0.3 3.76E+07 3.76E+07 0.0 3.76E+07 0.0 8.57E+09 8.57E+09 0.0 8.57E+09 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.43E+10 0.1 1.43E+10 ‐0.1
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.28E+07 ‐13.6 3.53E+07 ‐28.7 1.09E+05 1.09E+05 0.0 1.09E+05 0.0 7.94E+06 7.94E+06 0.0 7.94E+06 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 5.07E+07 ‐11.7 4.33E+07 ‐24.7
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 3.42E+08 2.80E+08 ‐18.3 2.74E+08 ‐19.8 1.39E+07 1.39E+07 0.0 1.39E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 5.72E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 0.0 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.22E+08 3.59E+08 ‐14.8 3.54E+08 ‐16.1
Agricultural land occupation m2a 8.12E+10 9.41E+10 15.9 6.98E+10 ‐14.0 3.47E+07 3.47E+07 0.0 3.47E+07 0.0 3.72E+09 3.72E+09 0.0 3.72E+09 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 9.77E+10 15.2 7.34E+10 ‐13.4
Urban land occupation m2a 9.39E+08 9.64E+08 2.7 9.16E+08 ‐2.5 8.97E+07 8.97E+07 0.0 8.97E+07 0.0 1.03E+09 1.03E+09 0.0 1.03E+09 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.03E+09 2.06E+09 1.2 2.01E+09 ‐1.1
Natural land transformation m2 7.58E+07 7.62E+07 0.5 7.54E+07 ‐0.6 1.03E+07 1.03E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 2.81E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.13E+08 1.14E+08 0.3 1.13E+08 ‐0.4
ENDPOINTS

Human health DALY 3.77E+05 3.82E+05 1.3 3.72E+05 ‐1.4 3.91E+04 3.91E+04 0.0 3.91E+04 0.0 3.73E+05 3.73E+05 0.0 3.73E+05 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.77E+05 7.82E+05 0.7 7.72E+05 ‐0.7
Ecosystem diversity species.yr 5.74E+03 5.89E+03 2.7 5.44E+03 ‐5.1 1.82E+02 1.82E+02 0.0 1.82E+02 0.0 2.12E+03 2.12E+03 0.0 2.12E+03 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.98E+03 8.14E+03 1.9 7.69E+03 ‐3.7
Resource availability $ 1.18E+12 1.18E+12 0.6 1.17E+12 ‐0.7 1.16E+11 1.16E+11 0.0 1.16E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 9.18E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.17E+12 2.18E+12 0.3 2.16E+12 ‐0.4

173
 Cotton substitution

Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline

% change compared to baseline
Hemp (woven only)

Hemp (woven only)

Hemp (woven only)

Hemp (woven only)

Hemp (woven only)
Flax (woven only)

Flax (woven only)

Flax (woven only)

Flax (woven only)

Flax (woven only)
Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario
Indicator

Unit

Climate change kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.12E+11 ‐0.7 2.19E+11 2.8 2.07E+10 2.07E+10 0.0 2.07E+10 0.0 1.85E+11 1.85E+11 0.0 1.85E+11 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.13E+11 4.11E+11 ‐0.4 4.18E+11 1.4
Ozone depletion kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.55E+04 ‐6.0 1.63E+04 ‐1.1 2.63E+03 2.63E+03 0.0 2.63E+03 0.0 1.04E+04 1.04E+04 0.0 1.04E+04 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.94E+04 2.84E+04 ‐3.4 2.92E+04 ‐0.6
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 5.21E+08 5.10E+08 ‐2.0 5.23E+08 0.4 1.27E+08 1.27E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 4.47E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.09E+09 1.08E+09 ‐1.0 1.09E+09 0.2
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.60E+08 ‐1.1 2.67E+08 1.2 3.74E+07 3.74E+07 0.0 3.74E+07 0.0 2.60E+08 2.60E+08 0.0 2.60E+08 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.52E+08 5.49E+08 ‐0.5 5.56E+08 0.6
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 8.75E+10 9.6 8.99E+10 12.5 1.20E+09 1.20E+09 0.0 1.20E+09 0.0 1.14E+11 1.14E+11 0.0 1.14E+11 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.97E+11 4.0 1.99E+11 5.3
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.27E+08 ‐2.8 8.46E+08 ‐0.6 1.12E+08 1.12E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 7.47E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.68E+09 1.66E+09 ‐1.4 1.68E+09 ‐0.3
Human toxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.27E+10 1.9 1.31E+10 4.7 4.43E+08 4.43E+08 0.0 4.43E+08 0.0 6.35E+10 6.35E+10 0.0 6.35E+10 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.60E+10 0.3 7.64E+10 0.8
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 5.98E+08 ‐36.6 6.05E+08 ‐35.8 1.91E+06 1.91E+06 0.0 1.91E+06 0.0 1.44E+08 1.44E+08 0.0 1.44E+08 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 7.43E+08 ‐31.7 7.50E+08 ‐31.1
MIDPOINTS

Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.11E+09 ‐34.3 1.11E+09 ‐34.0 1.24E+07 1.24E+07 0.0 1.24E+07 0.0 5.64E+09 5.64E+09 0.0 5.64E+09 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 6.75E+09 ‐7.9 6.76E+09 ‐7.8
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.39E+08 ‐9.7 3.48E+08 ‐7.5 2.32E+07 2.32E+07 0.0 2.32E+07 0.0 1.28E+09 1.28E+09 0.0 1.28E+09 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.64E+09 ‐2.2 1.64E+09 ‐1.7
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.06E+10 ‐3.3 1.08E+10 ‐1.1 2.13E+08 2.13E+08 0.0 2.13E+08 0.0 2.19E+10 2.19E+10 0.0 2.19E+10 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.23E+10 ‐1.1 3.26E+10 ‐0.4
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.21E+10 ‐1.3 7.47E+10 2.3 7.21E+09 7.21E+09 0.0 7.21E+09 0.0 5.70E+10 5.70E+10 0.0 5.70E+10 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.35E+11 1.34E+11 ‐0.7 1.36E+11 1.2
Water depletion m3 5.77E+09 5.69E+09 ‐1.4 5.64E+09 ‐2.2 3.76E+07 3.76E+07 0.0 3.76E+07 0.0 8.57E+09 8.57E+09 0.0 8.57E+09 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.42E+10 ‐0.6 1.42E+10 ‐0.9
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 4.95E+07 3.14E+07 ‐36.5 3.28E+07 ‐33.7 1.09E+05 1.09E+05 0.0 1.09E+05 0.0 7.94E+06 7.94E+06 0.0 7.94E+06 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 3.94E+07 ‐31.5 4.08E+07 ‐29.1
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 3.42E+08 2.67E+08 ‐22.0 2.70E+08 ‐21.2 1.39E+07 1.39E+07 0.0 1.39E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 5.72E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 0.0 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.22E+08 3.47E+08 ‐17.8 3.49E+08 ‐17.2
Agricultural land occupation m2a 8.12E+10 6.09E+10 ‐25.0 7.55E+10 ‐7.0 3.47E+07 3.47E+07 0.0 3.47E+07 0.0 3.72E+09 3.72E+09 0.0 3.72E+09 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 6.45E+10 ‐23.9 7.92E+10 ‐6.7
Urban land occupation m2a 9.39E+08 9.30E+08 ‐1.0 9.50E+08 1.1 8.97E+07 8.97E+07 0.0 8.97E+07 0.0 1.03E+09 1.03E+09 0.0 1.03E+09 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.03E+09 2.02E+09 ‐0.5 2.04E+09 0.5
Natural land transformation m2 7.58E+07 7.37E+07 ‐2.8 7.84E+07 3.4 1.03E+07 1.03E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 2.81E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.13E+08 1.11E+08 ‐1.9 1.16E+08 2.3
ENDPOINTS

Human health DALY 3.77E+05 3.75E+05 ‐0.7 3.87E+05 2.6 3.91E+04 3.91E+04 0.0 3.91E+04 0.0 3.73E+05 3.73E+05 0.0 3.73E+05 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.77E+05 7.75E+05 ‐0.3 7.87E+05 1.2
Ecosystem diversity species.yr 5.74E+03 5.27E+03 ‐8.1 5.77E+03 0.7 1.82E+02 1.82E+02 0.0 1.82E+02 0.0 2.12E+03 2.12E+03 0.0 2.12E+03 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.98E+03 7.52E+03 ‐5.8 8.02E+03 0.5
Ressource availability $ 1.18E+12 1.16E+12 ‐1.4 1.20E+12 2.3 1.16E+11 1.16E+11 0.0 1.16E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 9.18E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.17E+12 2.15E+12 ‐0.7 2.20E+12 1.2

174
 Reducing consumption of sizing chemicals

Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total

Sizing oil use reduction

Sizing oil use reduction

Sizing oil use reduction

Sizing oil use reduction

Sizing oil use reduction
% change compared to

% change compared to

% change compared to

% change compared to

% change compared to
Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario
Indicator

baseline

baseline

baseline

baseline

baseline
Unit
Climate change kg CO2 eq 2,13E+11 2,12E+11 0% 1,87E+10 1,87E+10 0% 1,85E+11 1,85E+11 0% ‐6,38E+09 ‐6,38E+09 0% 4,11E+11 4,10E+11 0%
Ozone depletion kg CFC‐11 eq 1,65E+04 1,64E+04 ‐1% 2,38E+03 2,38E+03 0% 1,04E+04 1,04E+04 0% ‐3,48E+01 ‐3,48E+01 0% 2,92E+04 2,91E+04 0%
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 5,21E+08 5,17E+08 ‐1% 1,15E+08 1,15E+08 0% 4,47E+08 4,47E+08 0% ‐7,60E+06 ‐7,60E+06 0% 1,07E+09 1,07E+09 0%
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 2,63E+08 2,62E+08 ‐1% 3,38E+07 3,38E+07 0% 2,60E+08 2,60E+08 0% ‐8,36E+06 ‐8,36E+06 0% 5,49E+08 5,47E+08 0%
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 7,99E+10 7,98E+10 0% 1,09E+09 1,09E+09 0% 1,14E+11 1,14E+11 0% ‐6,04E+09 ‐6,04E+09 0% 1,89E+11 1,89E+11 0%
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 8,51E+08 8,44E+08 ‐1% 1,01E+08 1,01E+08 0% 7,47E+08 7,47E+08 0% ‐2,72E+07 ‐2,72E+07 0% 1,67E+09 1,66E+09 0%
Human toxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1,25E+10 1,24E+10 ‐1% 4,03E+08 4,03E+08 0% 6,35E+10 6,35E+10 0% ‐5,68E+08 ‐5,68E+08 0% 7,58E+10 7,57E+10 0%
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 9,43E+08 9,42E+08 0% 1,73E+06 1,73E+06 0% 1,44E+08 1,44E+08 0% ‐9,83E+05 ‐9,83E+05 0% 1,09E+09 1,09E+09 0%
MIDPOINTS

Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1,68E+09 1,68E+09 0% 1,13E+07 1,13E+07 0% 5,64E+09 5,64E+09 0% ‐7,13E+06 ‐7,13E+06 0% 7,33E+09 7,33E+09 0%
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 3,76E+08 3,73E+08 ‐1% 2,11E+07 2,11E+07 0% 1,28E+09 1,28E+09 0% ‐1,18E+07 ‐1,18E+07 0% 1,67E+09 1,67E+09 0%
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1,09E+10 1,08E+10 ‐1% 1,98E+08 1,98E+08 0% 2,19E+10 2,19E+10 0% ‐3,74E+08 ‐3,74E+08 0% 3,27E+10 3,26E+10 0%
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 7,30E+10 7,27E+10 0% 6,52E+09 6,52E+09 0% 5,70E+10 5,70E+10 0% ‐2,48E+09 ‐2,48E+09 0% 1,34E+11 1,34E+11 0%
Water depletion m3 5,77E+09 5,76E+09 0% 3,43E+07 3,43E+07 0% 8,57E+09 8,57E+09 0% ‐6,00E+07 ‐6,00E+07 0% 1,43E+10 1,43E+10 0%
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 4,95E+07 4,93E+07 0% 1,00E+05 1,00E+05 0% 7,94E+06 7,94E+06 0% ‐1,04E+05 ‐1,04E+05 0% 5,74E+07 5,73E+07 0%
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 3,42E+08 3,09E+08 ‐10% 1,26E+07 1,26E+07 0% 5,72E+07 5,72E+07 0% 8,65E+06 8,65E+06 0% 4,20E+08 3,87E+08 ‐8%
Agricultural land occupation m2a 8,12E+10 8,03E+10 ‐1% 3,17E+07 3,17E+07 0% 3,72E+09 3,72E+09 0% ‐1,42E+08 ‐1,42E+08 0% 8,48E+10 8,39E+10 ‐1%
Urban land occupation m2a 9,39E+08 9,32E+08 ‐1% 8,22E+07 8,22E+07 0% 1,03E+09 1,03E+09 0% ‐3,32E+07 ‐3,32E+07 0% 2,02E+09 2,02E+09 0%
Natural land transformation m2 7,58E+07 7,55E+07 ‐1% 9,34E+06 9,34E+06 0% 2,81E+07 2,81E+07 0% ‐1,07E+06 ‐1,07E+06 0% 1,12E+08 1,12E+08 0%
ENDPOINTS

Human health DALY 3,77E+05 3,76E+05 0% 3,53E+04 3,53E+04 0% 3,73E+05 3,73E+05 0% ‐1,16E+04 ‐1,16E+04 0% 7,74E+05 7,72E+05 0%
Ecosystem diversity species.yr 5,74E+03 5,71E+03 0% 1,64E+02 1,64E+02 0% 2,12E+03 2,12E+03 0% ‐5,44E+01 ‐5,44E+01 0% 7,96E+03 7,94E+03 0%
Ressource availability $ 1,18E+12 1,17E+12 0% 1,05E+11 1,05E+11 0% 9,18E+11 9,18E+11 0% ‐3,99E+10 ‐3,99E+10 0% 2,16E+12 2,15E+12 0%

175
 Alternative knitting technologies
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
MIDPOINTS
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
ENDPOINTS
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Resource availability
176
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
Fully Fashioned Knitted Fabric
Fully Fashioned Knitted Fabric
Fully Fashioned Knitted Fabric
Fully Fashioned Knitted Fabric
Fully Fashioned Knitted Fabric
Integral Knitted Fabric
Integral Knitted Fabric
Integral Knitted Fabric
Integral Knitted Fabric
Integral Knitted Fabric
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.09E+11 ‐1.9 2.17E+11 1.6 2.07E+10 2.07E+10 0.0 2.07E+10 0.0 1.85E+11 1.85E+11 0.0 1.85E+11 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.13E+11 4.09E+11 ‐1.0 4.16E+11 0.8
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.53E+04 ‐7.2 1.56E+04 ‐5.1 2.63E+03 2.63E+03 0.0 2.63E+03 0.0 1.04E+04 1.04E+04 0.0 1.04E+04 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.94E+04 2.82E+04 ‐4.0 2.86E+04 ‐2.8
5.21E+08 5.22E+08 0.3 5.38E+08 3.2 1.27E+08 1.27E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 4.47E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.09E+09 1.09E+09 0.1 1.10E+09 1.6
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.68E+08 1.7 2.77E+08 5.3 3.74E+07 3.74E+07 0.0 3.74E+07 0.0 2.60E+08 2.60E+08 0.0 2.60E+08 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.52E+08 5.57E+08 0.8 5.66E+08 2.5
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 8.32E+10 4.2 8.89E+10 11.3 1.20E+09 1.20E+09 0.0 1.20E+09 0.0 1.14E+11 1.14E+11 0.0 1.14E+11 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.93E+11 1.8 1.98E+11 4.8
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.67E+08 1.9 8.97E+08 5.4 1.12E+08 1.12E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 7.47E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.68E+09 1.70E+09 1.0 1.73E+09 2.8
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.27E+10 1.4 1.32E+10 5.8 4.43E+08 4.43E+08 0.0 4.43E+08 0.0 6.35E+10 6.35E+10 0.0 6.35E+10 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.60E+10 0.2 7.65E+10 1.0
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 9.80E+08 3.9 9.75E+08 3.4 1.91E+06 1.91E+06 0.0 1.91E+06 0.0 1.44E+08 1.44E+08 0.0 1.44E+08 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 1.12E+09 3.4 1.12E+09 2.9
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.75E+09 3.9 1.75E+09 3.7 1.24E+07 1.24E+07 0.0 1.24E+07 0.0 5.64E+09 5.64E+09 0.0 5.64E+09 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 7.40E+09 0.9 7.39E+09 0.9
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.83E+08 1.8 3.93E+08 4.7 2.32E+07 2.32E+07 0.0 2.32E+07 0.0 1.28E+09 1.28E+09 0.0 1.28E+09 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.68E+09 0.4 1.69E+09 1.0
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.10E+10 0.7 1.14E+10 3.9 2.13E+08 2.13E+08 0.0 2.13E+08 0.0 2.19E+10 2.19E+10 0.0 2.19E+10 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.28E+10 0.2 3.31E+10 1.3
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.07E+10 ‐3.3 7.28E+10 ‐0.3 7.21E+09 7.21E+09 0.0 7.21E+09 0.0 5.70E+10 5.70E+10 0.0 5.70E+10 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.35E+11 1.32E+11 ‐1.8 1.35E+11 ‐0.1
m3 5.77E+09 5.30E+09 ‐8.2 5.36E+09 ‐7.2 3.76E+07 3.76E+07 0.0 3.76E+07 0.0 8.57E+09 8.57E+09 0.0 8.57E+09 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.38E+10 ‐3.3 1.39E+10 ‐2.9
kg P eq 4.95E+07 5.16E+07 4.3 5.15E+07 4.0 1.09E+05 1.09E+05 0.0 1.09E+05 0.0 7.94E+06 7.94E+06 0.0 7.94E+06 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 5.96E+07 3.7 5.94E+07 3.4
kg N eq 3.42E+08 3.49E+08 1.9 3.49E+08 2.1 1.39E+07 1.39E+07 0.0 1.39E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 5.72E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 0.0 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.22E+08 4.28E+08 1.6 4.29E+08 1.7
m2a 8.12E+10 8.39E+10 3.4 8.37E+10 3.0 3.47E+07 3.47E+07 0.0 3.47E+07 0.0 3.72E+09 3.72E+09 0.0 3.72E+09 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 8.75E+10 3.2 8.73E+10 2.9
m2a 9.39E+08 9.54E+08 1.6 9.86E+08 5.0 8.97E+07 8.97E+07 0.0 8.97E+07 0.0 1.03E+09 1.03E+09 0.0 1.03E+09 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.03E+09 2.04E+09 0.7 2.08E+09 2.3
m2 7.58E+07 7.31E+07 ‐3.6 7.40E+07 ‐2.4 1.03E+07 1.03E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 2.81E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.13E+08 1.10E+08 ‐2.4 1.11E+08 ‐1.6
DALY 3.77E+05 3.73E+05 ‐1.1 3.86E+05 2.4 3.91E+04 3.91E+04 0.0 3.91E+04 0.0 3.73E+05 3.73E+05 0.0 3.73E+05 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.77E+05 7.73E+05 ‐0.6 7.87E+05 1.2
species.yr 5.74E+03 5.67E+03 ‐1.2 5.72E+03 ‐0.3 1.82E+02 1.82E+02 0.0 1.82E+02 0.0 2.12E+03 2.12E+03 0.0 2.12E+03 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.98E+03 7.91E+03 ‐0.9 7.97E+03 ‐0.2
$ 1.18E+12 1.14E+12 ‐3.3 1.17E+12 ‐0.3 1.16E+11 1.16E+11 0.0 1.16E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 9.18E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.17E+12 2.13E+12 ‐1.8 2.17E+12 ‐0.1
 Replacing chemicals with enzymes

Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total

% change compared to

% change compared to

% change compared to

% change compared to

% change compared to
Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario
Use of enzyme

Use of enzyme

Use of enzyme

Use of enzyme

Use of enzyme
Indicator

baseline

baseline

baseline

baseline

baseline
Unit
Climate change kg CO2 eq 2,13E+11 2,13E+11 0% 1,87E+10 1,87E+10 0% 1,85E+11 1,85E+11 0% ‐6,38E+09 ‐6,38E+09 0% 4,11E+11 4,10E+11 0%
Ozone depletion kg CFC‐11 eq 1,65E+04 1,65E+04 0% 2,38E+03 2,38E+03 0% 1,04E+04 1,04E+04 0% ‐3,48E+01 ‐3,48E+01 0% 2,92E+04 2,92E+04 0%
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 5,21E+08 5,20E+08 0% 1,15E+08 1,15E+08 0% 4,47E+08 4,47E+08 0% ‐7,60E+06 ‐7,60E+06 0% 1,07E+09 1,07E+09 0%
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 2,63E+08 2,63E+08 0% 3,38E+07 3,38E+07 0% 2,60E+08 2,60E+08 0% ‐8,36E+06 ‐8,36E+06 0% 5,49E+08 5,48E+08 0%
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 7,99E+10 7,98E+10 0% 1,09E+09 1,09E+09 0% 1,14E+11 1,14E+11 0% ‐6,04E+09 ‐6,04E+09 0% 1,89E+11 1,89E+11 0%
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 8,51E+08 8,50E+08 0% 1,01E+08 1,01E+08 0% 7,47E+08 7,47E+08 0% ‐2,72E+07 ‐2,72E+07 0% 1,67E+09 1,67E+09 0%
Human toxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1,25E+10 1,24E+10 0% 4,03E+08 4,03E+08 0% 6,35E+10 6,35E+10 0% ‐5,68E+08 ‐5,68E+08 0% 7,58E+10 7,57E+10 0%
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 9,43E+08 9,43E+08 0% 1,73E+06 1,73E+06 0% 1,44E+08 1,44E+08 0% ‐9,83E+05 ‐9,83E+05 0% 1,09E+09 1,09E+09 0%
MIDPOINTS

Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1,68E+09 1,68E+09 0% 1,13E+07 1,13E+07 0% 5,64E+09 5,64E+09 0% ‐7,13E+06 ‐7,13E+06 0% 7,33E+09 7,33E+09 0%
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 3,76E+08 3,76E+08 0% 2,11E+07 2,11E+07 0% 1,28E+09 1,28E+09 0% ‐1,18E+07 ‐1,18E+07 0% 1,67E+09 1,67E+09 0%
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1,09E+10 1,09E+10 0% 1,98E+08 1,98E+08 0% 2,19E+10 2,19E+10 0% ‐3,74E+08 ‐3,74E+08 0% 3,27E+10 3,26E+10 0%
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 7,30E+10 7,30E+10 0% 6,52E+09 6,52E+09 0% 5,70E+10 5,70E+10 0% ‐2,48E+09 ‐2,48E+09 0% 1,34E+11 1,34E+11 0%
Water depletion m3 5,77E+09 5,66E+09 ‐2% 3,43E+07 3,43E+07 0% 8,57E+09 8,57E+09 0% ‐6,00E+07 ‐6,00E+07 0% 1,43E+10 1,42E+10 ‐1%
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 4,95E+07 4,95E+07 0% 1,00E+05 1,00E+05 0% 7,94E+06 7,94E+06 0% ‐1,04E+05 ‐1,04E+05 0% 5,74E+07 5,74E+07 0%
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 3,42E+08 3,42E+08 0% 1,26E+07 1,26E+07 0% 5,72E+07 5,72E+07 0% 8,65E+06 8,65E+06 0% 4,20E+08 4,21E+08 0%
Agricultural land occupation m2a 8,12E+10 8,12E+10 0% 3,17E+07 3,17E+07 0% 3,72E+09 3,72E+09 0% ‐1,42E+08 ‐1,42E+08 0% 8,48E+10 8,48E+10 0%
Urban land occupation m2a 9,39E+08 9,42E+08 0% 8,22E+07 8,22E+07 0% 1,03E+09 1,03E+09 0% ‐3,32E+07 ‐3,32E+07 0% 2,02E+09 2,03E+09 0%
Natural land transformation m2 7,58E+07 7,59E+07 0% 9,34E+06 9,34E+06 0% 2,81E+07 2,81E+07 0% ‐1,07E+06 ‐1,07E+06 0% 1,12E+08 1,12E+08 0%
ENDPOINT

Human health DALY 3,77E+05 3,77E+05 0% 3,53E+04 3,53E+04 0% 3,73E+05 3,73E+05 0% ‐1,16E+04 ‐1,16E+04 0% 7,74E+05 7,73E+05 0%
Ecosystem diversity species.yr 5,74E+03 5,73E+03 0% 1,64E+02 1,64E+02 0% 2,12E+03 2,12E+03 0% ‐5,44E+01 ‐5,44E+01 0% 7,96E+03 7,96E+03 0%
Ressource availability $ 1,18E+12 1,18E+12 0% 1,05E+11 1,05E+11 0% 9,18E+11 9,18E+11 0% ‐3,99E+10 ‐3,99E+10 0% 2,16E+12 2,16E+12 0%

177
 Recycling effluent water
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Mid‐points
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
End‐points
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Resource availability
178
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Reverse osmosis
Reverse osmosis
Reverse osmosis
Reverse osmosis
Reverse osmosis
Ion exchange
Ion exchange
Ion exchange
Ion exchange
Ion exchange
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.11E+11 ‐0.9 2.11E+11 ‐1.1 2.07E+10 2.07E+10 0.0 2.07E+10 0.0 1.85E+11 1.85E+11 0.0 1.85E+11 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.13E+11 4.11E+11 ‐0.5 4.10E+11 ‐0.5
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.60E+04 ‐2.6 1.60E+04 ‐3.1 2.63E+03 2.63E+03 0.0 2.63E+03 0.0 1.04E+04 1.04E+04 0.0 1.04E+04 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.94E+04 2.90E+04 ‐1.5 2.89E+04 ‐1.7
5.21E+08 5.13E+08 ‐1.6 5.11E+08 ‐1.8 1.27E+08 1.27E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 4.47E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.09E+09 1.08E+09 ‐0.8 1.08E+09 ‐0.9
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.59E+08 ‐1.6 2.58E+08 ‐1.9 3.74E+07 3.74E+07 0.0 3.74E+07 0.0 2.60E+08 2.60E+08 0.0 2.60E+08 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.52E+08 5.48E+08 ‐0.8 5.47E+08 ‐0.9
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 7.94E+10 ‐0.6 7.93E+10 ‐0.7 1.20E+09 1.20E+09 0.0 1.20E+09 0.0 1.14E+11 1.14E+11 0.0 1.14E+11 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.89E+11 ‐0.3 1.89E+11 ‐0.3
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.40E+08 ‐1.3 8.38E+08 ‐1.5 1.12E+08 1.12E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 7.47E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.68E+09 1.67E+09 ‐0.7 1.67E+09 ‐0.8
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.22E+10 ‐2.1 1.22E+10 ‐2.5 4.43E+08 4.43E+08 0.0 4.43E+08 0.0 6.35E+10 6.35E+10 0.0 6.35E+10 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.55E+10 ‐0.3 7.55E+10 ‐0.4
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 9.17E+08 ‐2.8 9.12E+08 ‐3.3 1.91E+06 1.91E+06 0.0 1.91E+06 0.0 1.44E+08 1.44E+08 0.0 1.44E+08 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 1.06E+09 ‐2.4 1.06E+09 ‐2.9
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.67E+09 ‐0.6 1.67E+09 ‐0.7 1.24E+07 1.24E+07 0.0 1.24E+07 0.0 5.64E+09 5.64E+09 0.0 5.64E+09 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 7.32E+09 ‐0.1 7.32E+09 ‐0.2
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.69E+08 ‐1.8 3.68E+08 ‐2.1 2.32E+07 2.32E+07 0.0 2.32E+07 0.0 1.28E+09 1.28E+09 0.0 1.28E+09 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.66E+09 ‐0.4 1.66E+09 ‐0.5
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.05E+10 ‐4.4 1.04E+10 ‐5.1 2.13E+08 2.13E+08 0.0 2.13E+08 0.0 2.19E+10 2.19E+10 0.0 2.19E+10 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.22E+10 ‐1.5 3.21E+10 ‐1.7
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.24E+10 ‐0.9 7.22E+10 ‐1.1 7.21E+09 7.21E+09 0.0 7.21E+09 0.0 5.70E+10 5.70E+10 0.0 5.70E+10 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.35E+11 1.34E+11 ‐0.5 1.34E+11 ‐0.6
m3 5.77E+09 2.66E+09 ‐53.8 2.13E+09 ‐63.1 3.76E+07 3.76E+07 0.0 3.76E+07 0.0 8.57E+09 8.57E+09 0.0 8.57E+09 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.12E+10 ‐21.7 1.07E+10 ‐25.4
kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.94E+07 ‐0.3 4.93E+07 ‐0.4 1.09E+05 1.09E+05 0.0 1.09E+05 0.0 7.94E+06 7.94E+06 0.0 7.94E+06 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 5.73E+07 ‐0.3 5.73E+07 ‐0.3
kg N eq 3.42E+08 3.36E+08 ‐1.7 3.35E+08 ‐1.9 1.39E+07 1.39E+07 0.0 1.39E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 5.72E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 0.0 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.22E+08 4.16E+08 ‐1.3 4.15E+08 ‐1.6
m2a 8.12E+10 8.00E+10 ‐1.4 7.98E+10 ‐1.7 3.47E+07 3.47E+07 0.0 3.47E+07 0.0 3.72E+09 3.72E+09 0.0 3.72E+09 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 8.36E+10 ‐1.4 8.34E+10 ‐1.6
m2a 9.39E+08 9.25E+08 ‐1.6 9.22E+08 ‐1.8 8.97E+07 8.97E+07 0.0 8.97E+07 0.0 1.03E+09 1.03E+09 0.0 1.03E+09 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.03E+09 2.02E+09 ‐0.7 2.01E+09 ‐0.8
m2 7.58E+07 6.45E+07 ‐15.0 6.25E+07 ‐17.6 1.03E+07 1.03E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 2.81E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.13E+08 1.02E+08 ‐10.0 9.99E+07 ‐11.8
DALY 3.77E+05 3.73E+05 ‐1.1 3.72E+05 ‐1.2 3.91E+04 3.91E+04 0.0 3.91E+04 0.0 3.73E+05 3.73E+05 0.0 3.73E+05 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.77E+05 7.73E+05 ‐0.5 7.73E+05 ‐0.6
species.yr 5.74E+03 4.97E+03 ‐13.4 4.84E+03 ‐15.7 1.82E+02 1.82E+02 0.0 1.82E+02 0.0 2.12E+03 2.12E+03 0.0 2.12E+03 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.98E+03 7.21E+03 ‐9.6 7.08E+03 ‐11.3
$ 1.18E+12 1.17E+12 ‐0.9 1.16E+12 ‐1.1 1.16E+11 1.16E+11 0.0 1.16E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 9.18E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.17E+12 2.16E+12 ‐0.5 2.16E+12 ‐0.6
 Use of low liquor dyeing machines and controllers
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Mid‐points
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
End‐points
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Resource availability
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
Conservative  scenario
Conservative  scenario
Conservative  scenario
Conservative  scenario
Conservative  scenario
Optimistic scenario
Optimistic scenario
Optimistic scenario
Optimistic scenario
Optimistic scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.13E+11 0.0 2.13E+11 0.0 1.87E+10 1.87E+10 0.0 1.87E+10 0.0 1.85E+11 1.81E+11 0.0 1.71E+11 ‐0.1 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.11E+11 4.06E+11 0.0 3.96E+11 0.0
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.65E+04 0.0 1.65E+04 0.0 2.38E+03 2.38E+03 0.0 2.38E+03 0.0 1.04E+04 1.02E+04 0.0 9.68E+03 ‐0.1 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.92E+04 2.90E+04 0.0 2.85E+04 0.0
5.21E+08 5.21E+08 0.0 5.21E+08 0.0 1.15E+08 1.15E+08 0.0 1.15E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 4.38E+08 0.0 4.16E+08 ‐0.1 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.07E+09 1.07E+09 0.0 1.04E+09 0.0
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.63E+08 0.0 2.63E+08 0.0 3.38E+07 3.38E+07 0.0 3.38E+07 0.0 2.60E+08 2.54E+08 0.0 2.41E+08 ‐0.1 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.49E+08 5.43E+08 0.0 5.30E+08 0.0
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 7.99E+10 0.0 7.99E+10 0.0 1.09E+09 1.09E+09 0.0 1.09E+09 0.0 1.14E+11 1.11E+11 0.0 1.04E+11 ‐0.1 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.86E+11 0.0 1.79E+11 ‐0.1
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.51E+08 0.0 8.51E+08 0.0 1.01E+08 1.01E+08 0.0 1.01E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 7.29E+08 0.0 6.88E+08 ‐0.1 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.65E+09 0.0 1.61E+09 0.0
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.25E+10 0.0 1.25E+10 0.0 4.03E+08 4.03E+08 0.0 4.03E+08 0.0 6.35E+10 6.31E+10 0.0 6.24E+10 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.55E+10 0.0 7.47E+10 0.0
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 9.43E+08 0.0 9.43E+08 0.0 1.73E+06 1.73E+06 0.0 1.73E+06 0.0 1.44E+08 1.43E+08 0.0 1.42E+08 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 1.09E+09 0.0 1.09E+09 0.0
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.68E+09 0.0 1.68E+09 0.0 1.13E+07 1.13E+07 0.0 1.13E+07 0.0 5.64E+09 5.64E+09 0.0 5.63E+09 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 7.33E+09 0.0 7.32E+09 0.0
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.76E+08 0.0 3.76E+08 0.0 2.11E+07 2.11E+07 0.0 2.11E+07 0.0 1.28E+09 1.28E+09 0.0 1.26E+09 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.66E+09 0.0 1.65E+09 0.0
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.09E+10 0.0 1.09E+10 0.0 1.98E+08 1.98E+08 0.0 1.98E+08 0.0 2.19E+10 2.17E+10 0.0 2.12E+10 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.25E+10 0.0 3.20E+10 0.0
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.30E+10 0.0 7.30E+10 0.0 6.52E+09 6.52E+09 0.0 6.52E+09 0.0 5.70E+10 5.57E+10 0.0 5.28E+10 ‐0.1 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.34E+11 1.33E+11 0.0 1.30E+11 0.0
m3 5.77E+09 5.77E+09 0.0 5.77E+09 0.0 3.43E+07 3.43E+07 0.0 3.43E+07 0.0 8.57E+09 8.54E+09 0.0 8.46E+09 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.43E+10 0.0 1.42E+10 0.0
kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.95E+07 0.0 4.95E+07 0.0 1.00E+05 1.00E+05 0.0 1.00E+05 0.0 7.94E+06 7.87E+06 0.0 7.71E+06 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 5.74E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 0.0
kg N eq 3.42E+08 3.42E+08 0.0 3.42E+08 0.0 1.26E+07 1.26E+07 0.0 1.26E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 5.62E+07 0.0 5.38E+07 ‐0.1 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.20E+08 4.19E+08 0.0 4.17E+08 0.0
m2a 8.12E+10 8.12E+10 0.0 8.12E+10 0.0 3.17E+07 3.17E+07 0.0 3.17E+07 0.0 3.72E+09 3.65E+09 0.0 3.47E+09 ‐0.1 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 8.47E+10 0.0 8.46E+10 0.0
m2a 9.39E+08 9.39E+08 0.0 9.39E+08 0.0 8.22E+07 8.22E+07 0.0 8.22E+07 0.0 1.03E+09 1.02E+09 0.0 9.72E+08 ‐0.1 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.02E+09 2.00E+09 0.0 1.96E+09 0.0
m2 7.58E+07 7.58E+07 0.0 7.58E+07 0.0 9.34E+06 9.34E+06 0.0 9.34E+06 0.0 2.81E+07 2.76E+07 0.0 2.63E+07 ‐0.1 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.12E+08 1.12E+08 0.0 1.10E+08 0.0
DALY 3.77E+05 3.77E+05 0.0 3.77E+05 0.0 3.53E+04 3.53E+04 0.0 3.53E+04 0.0 3.73E+05 3.65E+05 0.0 3.47E+05 ‐0.1 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.74E+05 7.66E+05 0.0 7.48E+05 0.0
species.yr 5.74E+03 5.74E+03 0.0 5.74E+03 0.0 1.64E+02 1.64E+02 0.0 1.64E+02 0.0 2.12E+03 2.08E+03 0.0 2.00E+03 ‐0.1 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.96E+03 7.93E+03 0.0 7.84E+03 0.0
$ 1.18E+12 1.18E+12 0.0 1.18E+12 0.0 1.05E+11 1.05E+11 0.0 1.05E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 8.98E+11 0.0 8.51E+11 ‐0.1 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.16E+12 2.14E+12 0.0 2.09E+12 0.0
179
 Means of transportation
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
MIDPOINTS
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
ENDPOINTS
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Resource availability
180
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Ship/air = 100/0
Ship/air = 100/0
Ship/air = 100/0
Ship/air = 100/0
Ship/air = 100/0
Ship/air = 96/4
Ship/air = 96/4
Ship/air = 96/4
Ship/air = 96/4
Ship/air = 96/4
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.13E+11 0.0 2.13E+11 0.0 2.07E+10 1.20E+10 ‐41.8 3.38E+09 ‐83.7 1.85E+11 1.85E+11 0.0 1.85E+11 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.13E+11 4.04E+11 ‐2.1 3.95E+11 ‐4.2
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.65E+04 0.0 1.65E+04 0.0 2.63E+03 1.53E+03 ‐41.6 4.39E+02 ‐83.3 1.04E+04 1.04E+04 0.0 1.04E+04 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.94E+04 2.83E+04 ‐3.7 2.72E+04 ‐7.4
5.21E+08 5.21E+08 0.0 5.21E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 8.42E+07 ‐33.8 4.11E+07 ‐67.7 4.47E+08 4.47E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.09E+09 1.04E+09 ‐4.0 1.00E+09 ‐7.9
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.63E+08 0.0 2.63E+08 0.0 3.74E+07 2.66E+07 ‐28.9 1.58E+07 ‐57.8 2.60E+08 2.60E+08 0.0 2.60E+08 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.52E+08 5.41E+08 ‐2.0 5.31E+08 ‐3.9
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 7.99E+10 0.0 7.99E+10 0.0 1.20E+09 8.05E+08 ‐33.0 4.08E+08 ‐66.0 1.14E+11 1.14E+11 0.0 1.14E+11 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.89E+11 ‐0.2 1.89E+11 ‐0.4
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.51E+08 0.0 8.51E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 8.05E+07 ‐28.2 4.88E+07 ‐56.5 7.47E+08 7.47E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.68E+09 1.65E+09 ‐1.9 1.62E+09 ‐3.8
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.25E+10 0.0 1.25E+10 0.0 4.43E+08 2.84E+08 ‐35.8 1.26E+08 ‐71.6 6.35E+10 6.35E+10 0.0 6.35E+10 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.56E+10 ‐0.2 7.55E+10 ‐0.4
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 9.43E+08 0.0 9.43E+08 0.0 1.91E+06 1.13E+06 ‐40.6 3.60E+05 ‐81.2 1.44E+08 1.44E+08 0.0 1.44E+08 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 1.09E+09 ‐0.1 1.09E+09 ‐0.1
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.68E+09 0.0 1.68E+09 0.0 1.24E+07 7.82E+06 ‐37.1 3.21E+06 ‐74.2 5.64E+09 5.64E+09 0.0 5.64E+09 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 7.33E+09 ‐0.1 7.32E+09 ‐0.1
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.76E+08 0.0 3.76E+08 0.0 2.32E+07 1.64E+07 ‐29.6 9.48E+06 ‐59.2 1.28E+09 1.28E+09 0.0 1.28E+09 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.66E+09 ‐0.4 1.66E+09 ‐0.8
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.09E+10 0.0 1.09E+10 0.0 2.13E+08 1.57E+08 ‐26.3 1.01E+08 ‐52.5 2.19E+10 2.19E+10 0.0 2.19E+10 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.26E+10 ‐0.2 3.26E+10 ‐0.3
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.30E+10 0.0 7.30E+10 0.0 7.21E+09 4.20E+09 ‐41.8 1.19E+09 ‐83.5 5.70E+10 5.70E+10 0.0 5.70E+10 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.35E+11 1.32E+11 ‐2.2 1.29E+11 ‐4.5
m3 5.77E+09 5.77E+09 0.0 5.77E+09 0.0 3.76E+07 2.38E+07 ‐36.8 9.96E+06 ‐73.6 8.57E+09 8.57E+09 0.0 8.57E+09 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.43E+10 ‐0.1 1.43E+10 ‐0.2
kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.95E+07 0.0 4.95E+07 0.0 1.09E+05 7.86E+04 ‐28.0 4.80E+04 ‐56.0 7.94E+06 7.94E+06 0.0 7.94E+06 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 5.74E+07 ‐0.1 5.74E+07 ‐0.1
kg N eq 3.42E+08 3.42E+08 0.0 3.42E+08 0.0 1.39E+07 9.23E+06 ‐33.6 4.56E+06 ‐67.2 5.72E+07 5.72E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 0.0 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.22E+08 4.17E+08 ‐1.1 4.12E+08 ‐2.2
m2a 8.12E+10 8.12E+10 0.0 8.12E+10 0.0 3.47E+07 2.29E+07 ‐34.1 1.11E+07 ‐68.1 3.72E+09 3.72E+09 0.0 3.72E+09 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 8.48E+10 0.0 8.48E+10 0.0
m2a 9.39E+08 9.39E+08 0.0 9.39E+08 0.0 8.97E+07 5.83E+07 ‐35.0 2.68E+07 ‐70.1 1.03E+09 1.03E+09 0.0 1.03E+09 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.03E+09 2.00E+09 ‐1.5 1.97E+09 ‐3.1
m2 7.58E+07 7.58E+07 0.0 7.58E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 5.96E+06 ‐42.3 1.59E+06 ‐84.6 2.81E+07 2.81E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.13E+08 1.09E+08 ‐3.9 1.04E+08 ‐7.7
DALY 3.77E+05 3.77E+05 0.0 3.77E+05 0.0 3.91E+04 2.40E+04 ‐38.6 8.93E+03 ‐77.1 3.73E+05 3.73E+05 0.0 3.73E+05 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.77E+05 7.62E+05 ‐1.9 7.47E+05 ‐3.9
species.yr 5.74E+03 5.74E+03 0.0 5.74E+03 0.0 1.82E+02 1.06E+02 ‐41.7 3.01E+01 ‐83.4 2.12E+03 2.12E+03 0.0 2.12E+03 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.98E+03 7.91E+03 ‐1.0 7.83E+03 ‐1.9
$ 1.18E+12 1.18E+12 0.0 1.18E+12 0.0 1.16E+11 6.74E+10 ‐41.8 1.91E+10 ‐83.5 9.18E+11 9.18E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.17E+12 2.12E+12 ‐2.2 2.07E+12 ‐4.5
 Appliances Load capacity
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
MIDPOINTS
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
ENDPOINTS
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Resource availability
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
Load capacity 3.7 kg/cycle
Load capacity 3.7 kg/cycle
Load capacity 3.7 kg/cycle
Load capacity 3.7 kg/cycle
Load capacity 3.7 kg/cycle
Load capacity 4 kg/cycle
Load capacity 4 kg/cycle
Load capacity 4 kg/cycle
Load capacity 4 kg/cycle
Load capacity 4 kg/cycle
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.13E+11 0.0 2.13E+11 0.0 2.07E+10 2.07E+10 0.0 2.07E+10 0.0 1.85E+11 1.77E+11 ‐4.1 1.71E+11 ‐7.6 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.13E+11 4.05E+11 ‐1.8 3.99E+11 ‐3.4
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.65E+04 0.0 1.65E+04 0.0 2.63E+03 2.63E+03 0.0 2.63E+03 0.0 1.04E+04 9.88E+03 ‐4.6 9.47E+03 ‐8.5 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.94E+04 2.89E+04 ‐1.6 2.85E+04 ‐3.0
5.21E+08 5.21E+08 0.0 5.21E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 1.27E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 4.27E+08 ‐4.5 4.10E+08 ‐8.3 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.09E+09 1.07E+09 ‐1.9 1.05E+09 ‐3.4
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.63E+08 0.0 2.63E+08 0.0 3.74E+07 3.74E+07 0.0 3.74E+07 0.0 2.60E+08 2.49E+08 ‐4.4 2.39E+08 ‐8.0 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.52E+08 5.41E+08 ‐2.0 5.32E+08 ‐3.8
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 7.99E+10 0.0 7.99E+10 0.0 1.20E+09 1.20E+09 0.0 1.20E+09 0.0 1.14E+11 1.10E+11 ‐3.5 1.07E+11 ‐6.3 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.85E+11 ‐2.1 1.82E+11 ‐3.8
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.51E+08 0.0 8.51E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 1.12E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 7.16E+08 ‐4.1 6.91E+08 ‐7.5 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.68E+09 1.65E+09 ‐1.8 1.63E+09 ‐3.3
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.25E+10 0.0 1.25E+10 0.0 4.43E+08 4.43E+08 0.0 4.43E+08 0.0 6.35E+10 5.93E+10 ‐6.6 5.57E+10 ‐12.2 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.16E+10 ‐5.5 6.81E+10 ‐10.2
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 9.43E+08 0.0 9.43E+08 0.0 1.91E+06 1.91E+06 0.0 1.91E+06 0.0 1.44E+08 1.34E+08 ‐6.7 1.26E+08 ‐12.5 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 1.08E+09 ‐0.9 1.07E+09 ‐1.7
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.68E+09 0.0 1.68E+09 0.0 1.24E+07 1.24E+07 0.0 1.24E+07 0.0 5.64E+09 5.24E+09 ‐7.1 4.89E+09 ‐13.3 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 6.93E+09 ‐5.5 6.58E+09 ‐10.3
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.76E+08 0.0 3.76E+08 0.0 2.32E+07 2.32E+07 0.0 2.32E+07 0.0 1.28E+09 1.20E+09 ‐6.6 1.13E+09 ‐12.2 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.59E+09 ‐5.0 1.52E+09 ‐9.4
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.09E+10 0.0 1.09E+10 0.0 2.13E+08 2.13E+08 0.0 2.13E+08 0.0 2.19E+10 2.06E+10 ‐6.0 1.95E+10 ‐11.1 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.14E+10 ‐4.0 3.02E+10 ‐7.5
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.30E+10 0.0 7.30E+10 0.0 7.21E+09 7.21E+09 0.0 7.21E+09 0.0 5.70E+10 5.45E+10 ‐4.3 5.25E+10 ‐7.9 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.35E+11 1.32E+11 ‐1.8 1.30E+11 ‐3.3
m3 5.77E+09 5.77E+09 0.0 5.77E+09 0.0 3.76E+07 3.76E+07 0.0 3.76E+07 0.0 8.57E+09 8.10E+09 ‐5.5 7.70E+09 ‐10.2 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.38E+10 ‐3.3 1.34E+10 ‐6.1
kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.95E+07 0.0 4.95E+07 0.0 1.09E+05 1.09E+05 0.0 1.09E+05 0.0 7.94E+06 7.45E+06 ‐6.1 7.04E+06 ‐11.3 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 5.70E+07 ‐0.8 5.65E+07 ‐1.6
kg N eq 3.42E+08 3.42E+08 0.0 3.42E+08 0.0 1.39E+07 1.39E+07 0.0 1.39E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 5.44E+07 ‐4.8 5.21E+07 ‐8.9 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.22E+08 4.19E+08 ‐0.7 4.17E+08 ‐1.2
m2a 8.12E+10 8.12E+10 0.0 8.12E+10 0.0 3.47E+07 3.47E+07 0.0 3.47E+07 0.0 3.72E+09 3.56E+09 ‐4.5 3.42E+09 ‐8.2 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 8.47E+10 ‐0.2 8.45E+10 ‐0.4
m2a 9.39E+08 9.39E+08 0.0 9.39E+08 0.0 8.97E+07 8.97E+07 0.0 8.97E+07 0.0 1.03E+09 9.86E+08 ‐4.7 9.45E+08 ‐8.7 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.03E+09 1.98E+09 ‐2.4 1.94E+09 ‐4.4
m2 7.58E+07 7.58E+07 0.0 7.58E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 1.03E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 2.68E+07 ‐4.6 2.58E+07 ‐8.5 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.13E+08 1.12E+08 ‐1.1 1.11E+08 ‐2.1
DALY 3.77E+05 3.77E+05 0.0 3.77E+05 0.0 3.91E+04 3.91E+04 0.0 3.91E+04 0.0 3.73E+05 3.56E+05 ‐4.4 3.42E+05 ‐8.2 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.77E+05 7.61E+05 ‐2.1 7.47E+05 ‐3.9
species.yr 5.74E+03 5.74E+03 0.0 5.74E+03 0.0 1.82E+02 1.82E+02 0.0 1.82E+02 0.0 2.12E+03 2.01E+03 ‐4.9 1.92E+03 ‐9.1 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.98E+03 7.88E+03 ‐1.3 7.79E+03 ‐2.4
$ 1.18E+12 1.18E+12 0.0 1.18E+12 0.0 1.16E+11 1.16E+11 0.0 1.16E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 8.79E+11 ‐4.3 8.46E+11 ‐7.9 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.17E+12 2.13E+12 ‐1.8 2.10E+12 ‐3.3
181
 Tumble drying reduction
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
MIDPOINTS
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
ENDPOINTS
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Resource availability
182
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
‐50% tumble drying in summer, 
‐50% tumble drying in summer, 
‐50% tumble drying in summer, 
‐50% tumble drying in summer, 
‐50% tumble drying in summer, 
‐30% tumble drying in summer
‐30% tumble drying in summer
‐30% tumble drying in summer
‐30% tumble drying in summer
‐30% tumble drying in summer
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
15% in winter
15% in winter
15% in winter
15% in winter
15% in winter
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.13E+11 0.0 2.13E+11 0.0 2.07E+10 2.07E+10 0.0 2.07E+10 0.0 1.85E+11 1.82E+11 ‐1.6 1.78E+11 ‐3.8 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.13E+11 4.10E+11 ‐0.7 4.05E+11 ‐1.7
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.65E+04 0.0 1.65E+04 0.0 2.63E+03 2.63E+03 0.0 2.63E+03 0.0 1.04E+04 1.02E+04 ‐1.3 1.00E+04 ‐3.2 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.94E+04 2.93E+04 ‐0.5 2.91E+04 ‐1.1
5.21E+08 5.21E+08 0.0 5.21E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 1.27E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 4.41E+08 ‐1.4 4.32E+08 ‐3.4 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.09E+09 1.08E+09 ‐0.6 1.07E+09 ‐1.4
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.63E+08 0.0 2.63E+08 0.0 3.74E+07 3.74E+07 0.0 3.74E+07 0.0 2.60E+08 2.56E+08 ‐1.5 2.51E+08 ‐3.6 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.52E+08 5.49E+08 ‐0.7 5.43E+08 ‐1.7
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 7.99E+10 0.0 7.99E+10 0.0 1.20E+09 1.20E+09 0.0 1.20E+09 0.0 1.14E+11 1.12E+11 ‐1.9 1.09E+11 ‐4.6 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.87E+11 ‐1.1 1.84E+11 ‐2.8
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.51E+08 0.0 8.51E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 1.12E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 7.35E+08 ‐1.6 7.17E+08 ‐3.9 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.68E+09 1.67E+09 ‐0.7 1.65E+09 ‐1.7
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.25E+10 0.0 1.25E+10 0.0 4.43E+08 4.43E+08 0.0 4.43E+08 0.0 6.35E+10 6.32E+10 ‐0.3 6.29E+10 ‐0.8 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.56E+10 ‐0.3 7.53E+10 ‐0.7
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 9.43E+08 0.0 9.43E+08 0.0 1.91E+06 1.91E+06 0.0 1.91E+06 0.0 1.44E+08 1.43E+08 ‐0.3 1.43E+08 ‐0.6 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 1.09E+09 0.0 1.09E+09 ‐0.1
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.68E+09 0.0 1.68E+09 0.0 1.24E+07 1.24E+07 0.0 1.24E+07 0.0 5.64E+09 5.64E+09 0.0 5.64E+09 ‐0.1 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 7.33E+09 0.0 7.32E+09 ‐0.1
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.76E+08 0.0 3.76E+08 0.0 2.32E+07 2.32E+07 0.0 2.32E+07 0.0 1.28E+09 1.28E+09 ‐0.3 1.27E+09 ‐0.8 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.67E+09 ‐0.3 1.66E+09 ‐0.6
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.09E+10 0.0 1.09E+10 0.0 2.13E+08 2.13E+08 0.0 2.13E+08 0.0 2.19E+10 2.18E+10 ‐0.6 2.16E+10 ‐1.5 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.25E+10 ‐0.4 3.23E+10 ‐1.0
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.30E+10 0.0 7.30E+10 0.0 7.21E+09 7.21E+09 0.0 7.21E+09 0.0 5.70E+10 5.61E+10 ‐1.5 5.49E+10 ‐3.6 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.35E+11 1.34E+11 ‐0.6 1.33E+11 ‐1.5
m3 5.77E+09 5.77E+09 0.0 5.77E+09 0.0 3.76E+07 3.76E+07 0.0 3.76E+07 0.0 8.57E+09 8.55E+09 ‐0.3 8.52E+09 ‐0.7 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.43E+10 ‐0.2 1.43E+10 ‐0.4
kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.95E+07 0.0 4.95E+07 0.0 1.09E+05 1.09E+05 0.0 1.09E+05 0.0 7.94E+06 7.89E+06 ‐0.6 7.83E+06 ‐1.4 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 5.74E+07 ‐0.1 5.73E+07 ‐0.2
kg N eq 3.42E+08 3.42E+08 0.0 3.42E+08 0.0 1.39E+07 1.39E+07 0.0 1.39E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 5.65E+07 ‐1.2 5.55E+07 ‐3.0 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.22E+08 4.21E+08 ‐0.2 4.20E+08 ‐0.4
m2a 8.12E+10 8.12E+10 0.0 8.12E+10 0.0 3.47E+07 3.47E+07 0.0 3.47E+07 0.0 3.72E+09 3.67E+09 ‐1.4 3.60E+09 ‐3.4 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 8.48E+10 ‐0.1 8.47E+10 ‐0.1
m2a 9.39E+08 9.39E+08 0.0 9.39E+08 0.0 8.97E+07 8.97E+07 0.0 8.97E+07 0.0 1.03E+09 1.02E+09 ‐1.2 1.00E+09 ‐3.0 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.03E+09 2.02E+09 ‐0.6 2.00E+09 ‐1.5
m2 7.58E+07 7.58E+07 0.0 7.58E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 1.03E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 2.78E+07 ‐1.3 2.72E+07 ‐3.2 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.13E+08 1.13E+08 ‐0.3 1.12E+08 ‐0.8
DALY 3.77E+05 3.77E+05 0.0 3.77E+05 0.0 3.91E+04 3.91E+04 0.0 3.91E+04 0.0 3.73E+05 3.68E+05 ‐1.4 3.60E+05 ‐3.4 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.77E+05 7.72E+05 ‐0.7 7.65E+05 ‐1.6
species.yr 5.74E+03 5.74E+03 0.0 5.74E+03 0.0 1.82E+02 1.82E+02 0.0 1.82E+02 0.0 2.12E+03 2.09E+03 ‐1.2 2.06E+03 ‐2.8 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.98E+03 7.96E+03 ‐0.3 7.92E+03 ‐0.7
$ 1.18E+12 1.18E+12 0.0 1.18E+12 0.0 1.16E+11 1.16E+11 0.0 1.16E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 9.04E+11 ‐1.5 8.85E+11 ‐3.6 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.17E+12 2.16E+12 ‐0.6 2.14E+12 ‐1.5
 Appliance efficiency
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Mid‐points
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
End‐points
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Resource availability
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
Improved washing machines and 
Improved washing machines and 
Improved washing machines and 
Improved washing machines and 
Improved washing machines and 
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
Improved washing machines 
Improved washing machines 
Improved washing machines 
Improved washing machines 
Improved washing machines 
dryers efficiency
dryers efficiency
dryers efficiency
dryers efficiency
dryers efficiency
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
efficiency
efficiency
efficiency
efficiency
efficiency
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.13E+11 0.0 2.13E+11 0.0 2.07E+10 2.07E+10 0.0 2.07E+10 0.0 1.85E+11 1.79E+11 ‐3.5 1.68E+11 ‐8.9 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.13E+11 4.06E+11 ‐1.5 3.96E+11 ‐4.0
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.65E+04 0.0 1.65E+04 0.0 2.63E+03 2.63E+03 0.0 2.63E+03 0.0 1.04E+04 1.01E+04 ‐2.9 9.58E+03 ‐7.5 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.94E+04 2.91E+04 ‐1.0 2.86E+04 ‐2.6
5.21E+08 5.21E+08 0.0 5.21E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 1.27E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 4.33E+08 ‐3.1 4.12E+08 ‐7.9 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.09E+09 1.07E+09 ‐1.3 1.05E+09 ‐3.2
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.63E+08 0.0 2.63E+08 0.0 3.74E+07 3.74E+07 0.0 3.74E+07 0.0 2.60E+08 2.52E+08 ‐3.2 2.38E+08 ‐8.3 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.52E+08 5.44E+08 ‐1.5 5.31E+08 ‐3.9
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 7.99E+10 0.0 7.99E+10 0.0 1.20E+09 1.20E+09 0.0 1.20E+09 0.0 1.14E+11 1.10E+11 ‐4.1 1.02E+11 ‐10.7 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.85E+11 ‐2.5 1.77E+11 ‐6.5
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.51E+08 0.0 8.51E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 1.12E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 7.21E+08 ‐3.5 6.79E+08 ‐9.0 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.68E+09 1.66E+09 ‐1.5 1.62E+09 ‐4.0
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.25E+10 0.0 1.25E+10 0.0 4.43E+08 4.43E+08 0.0 4.43E+08 0.0 6.35E+10 6.29E+10 ‐0.9 6.21E+10 ‐2.1 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.53E+10 ‐0.7 7.45E+10 ‐1.7
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 9.43E+08 0.0 9.43E+08 0.0 1.91E+06 1.91E+06 0.0 1.91E+06 0.0 1.44E+08 1.43E+08 ‐0.6 1.42E+08 ‐1.5 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 1.09E+09 ‐0.1 1.09E+09 ‐0.2
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.68E+09 0.0 1.68E+09 0.0 1.24E+07 1.24E+07 0.0 1.24E+07 0.0 5.64E+09 5.63E+09 ‐0.2 5.62E+09 ‐0.3 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 7.32E+09 ‐0.1 7.31E+09 ‐0.3
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.76E+08 0.0 3.76E+08 0.0 2.32E+07 2.32E+07 0.0 2.32E+07 0.0 1.28E+09 1.27E+09 ‐0.9 1.26E+09 ‐2.1 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.66E+09 ‐0.7 1.64E+09 ‐1.6
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.09E+10 0.0 1.09E+10 0.0 2.13E+08 2.13E+08 0.0 2.13E+08 0.0 2.19E+10 2.16E+10 ‐1.4 2.11E+10 ‐3.6 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.24E+10 ‐1.0 3.19E+10 ‐2.4
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.30E+10 0.0 7.30E+10 0.0 7.21E+09 7.21E+09 0.0 7.21E+09 0.0 5.70E+10 5.51E+10 ‐3.2 5.22E+10 ‐8.4 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.35E+11 1.33E+11 ‐1.4 1.30E+11 ‐3.6
m3 5.77E+09 5.77E+09 0.0 5.77E+09 0.0 3.76E+07 3.76E+07 0.0 3.76E+07 0.0 8.57E+09 6.75E+09 ‐21.2 6.67E+09 ‐22.1 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.25E+10 ‐12.7 1.24E+10 ‐13.3
kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.95E+07 0.0 4.95E+07 0.0 1.09E+05 1.09E+05 0.0 1.09E+05 0.0 7.94E+06 7.83E+06 ‐1.3 7.67E+06 ‐3.3 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 5.73E+07 ‐0.2 5.72E+07 ‐0.5
kg N eq 3.42E+08 3.42E+08 0.0 3.42E+08 0.0 1.39E+07 1.39E+07 0.0 1.39E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 5.57E+07 ‐2.7 5.32E+07 ‐6.9 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.22E+08 4.20E+08 ‐0.4 4.18E+08 ‐0.9
m2a 8.12E+10 8.12E+10 0.0 8.12E+10 0.0 3.47E+07 3.47E+07 0.0 3.47E+07 0.0 3.72E+09 3.59E+09 ‐3.7 3.41E+09 ‐8.5 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 8.47E+10 ‐0.2 8.45E+10 ‐0.4
m2a 9.39E+08 9.39E+08 0.0 9.39E+08 0.0 8.97E+07 8.97E+07 0.0 8.97E+07 0.0 1.03E+09 9.84E+08 ‐4.9 9.40E+08 ‐9.1 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.03E+09 1.98E+09 ‐2.5 1.94E+09 ‐4.6
m2 7.58E+07 7.58E+07 0.0 7.58E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 1.03E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 2.72E+07 ‐3.4 2.59E+07 ‐7.9 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.13E+08 1.12E+08 ‐0.8 1.11E+08 ‐2.0
DALY 3.77E+05 3.77E+05 0.0 3.77E+05 0.0 3.91E+04 3.91E+04 0.0 3.91E+04 0.0 3.73E+05 3.61E+05 ‐3.1 3.43E+05 ‐8.0 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.77E+05 7.66E+05 ‐1.5 7.48E+05 ‐3.8
species.yr 5.74E+03 5.74E+03 0.0 5.74E+03 0.0 1.82E+02 1.82E+02 0.0 1.82E+02 0.0 2.12E+03 2.06E+03 ‐2.6 1.98E+03 ‐6.6 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.98E+03 7.93E+03 ‐0.7 7.84E+03 ‐1.7
$ 1.18E+12 1.18E+12 0.0 1.18E+12 0.0 1.16E+11 1.16E+11 0.0 1.16E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 8.88E+11 ‐3.2 8.41E+11 ‐8.4 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.17E+12 2.14E+12 ‐1.4 2.09E+12 ‐3.6
183
 Low temperature
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
Mid‐points
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
End‐points
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Resource availability
184
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
Average temperature 39.3°C 
Average temperature 32.9°C 
Average temperature 39.3°C 
Average temperature 32.9°C 
Average temperature 39.3°C 
Average temperature 32.9°C 
Average temperature 39.3°C 
Average temperature 32.9°C 
Average temperature 39.3°C 
Average temperature 32.9°C 
Conservative scenario ‐ 
Conservative scenario ‐ 
Conservative scenario ‐ 
Conservative scenario ‐ 
Conservative scenario ‐ 
Optimistic scenario ‐ 
Optimistic scenario ‐ 
Optimistic scenario ‐ 
Optimistic scenario ‐ 
Optimistic scenario ‐ 
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.13E+11 0.0 2.13E+11 0.0 2.07E+10 2.07E+10 0.0 2.07E+10 0.0 1.85E+11 1.75E+11 ‐5.5 1.65E+11 ‐10.9 ‐6.38E+09 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 0.0 4.13E+11 4.02E+11 ‐2.5 3.92E+11 ‐4.9
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.65E+04 0.0 1.65E+04 0.0 2.63E+03 2.63E+03 0.0 2.63E+03 0.0 1.04E+04 9.88E+03 ‐4.6 9.42E+03 ‐9.1 ‐3.48E+01 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 0.0 2.94E+04 2.89E+04 ‐1.6 2.85E+04 ‐3.2
5.21E+08 5.21E+08 0.0 5.21E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 1.27E+08 0.0 1.27E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 4.25E+08 ‐4.8 4.04E+08 ‐9.5 ‐7.60E+06 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 0.0 1.09E+09 1.07E+09 ‐2.0 1.04E+09 ‐3.9
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.63E+08 0.0 2.63E+08 0.0 3.74E+07 3.74E+07 0.0 3.74E+07 0.0 2.60E+08 2.47E+08 ‐5.1 2.34E+08 ‐10.1 ‐8.36E+06 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 0.0 5.52E+08 5.39E+08 ‐2.4 5.26E+08 ‐4.7
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 7.99E+10 0.0 7.99E+10 0.0 1.20E+09 1.20E+09 0.0 1.20E+09 0.0 1.14E+11 1.07E+11 ‐6.6 9.93E+10 ‐13.1 ‐6.04E+09 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 0.0 1.89E+11 1.82E+11 ‐4.0 1.74E+11 ‐7.9
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.51E+08 0.0 8.51E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 1.12E+08 0.0 1.12E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 7.05E+08 ‐5.5 6.64E+08 ‐11.0 ‐2.72E+07 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 0.0 1.68E+09 1.64E+09 ‐2.5 1.60E+09 ‐4.9
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.25E+10 0.0 1.25E+10 0.0 4.43E+08 4.43E+08 0.0 4.43E+08 0.0 6.35E+10 6.27E+10 ‐1.2 6.20E+10 ‐2.4 ‐5.68E+08 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 0.0 7.58E+10 7.51E+10 ‐1.0 7.43E+10 ‐2.0
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 9.43E+08 0.0 9.43E+08 0.0 1.91E+06 1.91E+06 0.0 1.91E+06 0.0 1.44E+08 1.42E+08 ‐0.9 1.41E+08 ‐1.8 ‐9.83E+05 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 0.0 1.09E+09 1.09E+09 ‐0.1 1.09E+09 ‐0.2
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.68E+09 0.0 1.68E+09 0.0 1.24E+07 1.24E+07 0.0 1.24E+07 0.0 5.64E+09 5.63E+09 ‐0.2 5.62E+09 ‐0.3 ‐7.13E+06 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 0.0 7.33E+09 7.32E+09 ‐0.1 7.31E+09 ‐0.3
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.76E+08 0.0 3.76E+08 0.0 2.32E+07 2.32E+07 0.0 2.32E+07 0.0 1.28E+09 1.27E+09 ‐1.2 1.25E+09 ‐2.4 ‐1.18E+07 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 0.0 1.67E+09 1.66E+09 ‐0.9 1.64E+09 ‐1.8
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.09E+10 0.0 1.09E+10 0.0 2.13E+08 2.13E+08 0.0 2.13E+08 0.0 2.19E+10 2.14E+10 ‐2.2 2.09E+10 ‐4.3 ‐3.74E+08 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 0.0 3.27E+10 3.22E+10 ‐1.5 3.17E+10 ‐2.9
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.30E+10 0.0 7.30E+10 0.0 7.21E+09 7.21E+09 0.0 7.21E+09 0.0 5.70E+10 5.40E+10 ‐5.2 5.11E+10 ‐10.3 ‐2.48E+09 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 0.0 1.35E+11 1.32E+11 ‐2.2 1.29E+11 ‐4.4
m3 5.77E+09 5.77E+09 0.0 5.77E+09 0.0 3.76E+07 3.76E+07 0.0 3.76E+07 0.0 8.57E+09 8.49E+09 ‐0.9 8.42E+09 ‐1.8 ‐6.00E+07 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 0.0 1.43E+10 1.42E+10 ‐0.6 1.42E+10 ‐1.1
kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.95E+07 0.0 4.95E+07 0.0 1.09E+05 1.09E+05 0.0 1.09E+05 0.0 7.94E+06 7.78E+06 ‐2.0 7.62E+06 ‐4.0 ‐1.04E+05 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 0.0 5.74E+07 5.73E+07 ‐0.3 5.71E+07 ‐0.5
kg N eq 3.42E+08 3.42E+08 0.0 3.42E+08 0.0 1.39E+07 1.39E+07 0.0 1.39E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 5.48E+07 ‐4.2 5.24E+07 ‐8.4 8.65E+06 8.65E+06 0.0 8.65E+06 0.0 4.22E+08 4.19E+08 ‐0.6 4.17E+08 ‐1.1
m2a 8.12E+10 8.12E+10 0.0 8.12E+10 0.0 3.47E+07 3.47E+07 0.0 3.47E+07 0.0 3.72E+09 3.54E+09 ‐4.8 3.37E+09 ‐9.5 ‐1.42E+08 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 0.0 8.48E+10 8.46E+10 ‐0.2 8.45E+10 ‐0.4
m2a 9.39E+08 9.39E+08 0.0 9.39E+08 0.0 8.97E+07 8.97E+07 0.0 8.97E+07 0.0 1.03E+09 9.90E+08 ‐4.2 9.47E+08 ‐8.4 ‐3.32E+07 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 0.0 2.03E+09 1.99E+09 ‐2.2 1.94E+09 ‐4.3
m2 7.58E+07 7.58E+07 0.0 7.58E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 1.03E+07 0.0 1.03E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 2.68E+07 ‐4.6 2.56E+07 ‐9.1 ‐1.07E+06 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 0.0 1.13E+08 1.12E+08 ‐1.1 1.11E+08 ‐2.3
DALY 3.77E+05 3.77E+05 0.0 3.77E+05 0.0 3.91E+04 3.91E+04 0.0 3.91E+04 0.0 3.73E+05 3.55E+05 ‐4.9 3.37E+05 ‐9.7 ‐1.16E+04 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 0.0 7.77E+05 7.59E+05 ‐2.4 7.41E+05 ‐4.7
species.yr 5.74E+03 5.74E+03 0.0 5.74E+03 0.0 1.82E+02 1.82E+02 0.0 1.82E+02 0.0 2.12E+03 2.03E+03 ‐4.0 1.95E+03 ‐8.0 ‐5.44E+01 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 0.0 7.98E+03 7.90E+03 ‐1.1 7.81E+03 ‐2.1
$ 1.18E+12 1.18E+12 0.0 1.18E+12 0.0 1.16E+11 1.16E+11 0.0 1.16E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 8.70E+11 ‐5.2 8.24E+11 ‐10.3 ‐3.99E+10 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 0.0 2.17E+12 2.12E+12 ‐2.2 2.08E+12 ‐4.3
 Used clothing recycling
Indicator
Climate change
Ozone depletion
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC
Particulate matter formation
Ionising radiation
Terrestrial acidification
Human toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
MIDPOINTS
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Marine ecotoxicity
Metal depletion
Fossil depletion
Water depletion
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Agricultural land occupation
Urban land occupation
Natural land transformation
ENDPOINTS
Human health
Ecosystem diversity
Resource availability
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
% change compared to baseline
Collection of 40% of clothing 
Collection of 70% of clothing 
Collection of 40% of clothing 
Collection of 70% of clothing 
Collection of 40% of clothing 
Collection of 70% of clothing 
Collection of 40% of clothing 
Collection of 70% of clothing 
Collection of 40% of clothing 
Collection of 70% of clothing 
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
Baseline scenario
waste 
waste 
waste 
waste 
waste 
waste 
waste 
waste 
waste 
waste 
Unit
kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.10E+11 ‐1.4 2.06E+11 ‐3.6 2.07E+10 2.03E+10 ‐1.8 1.98E+10 ‐4.4 1.85E+11 1.85E+11 0.0 1.85E+11 0.0 ‐6.38E+09 ‐1.55E+10 142.2 ‐3.29E+10 415.4 4.13E+11 4.00E+11 ‐3.0 3.77E+11 ‐8.5
kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.62E+04 ‐1.5 1.59E+04 ‐3.8 2.63E+03 2.58E+03 ‐1.8 2.51E+03 ‐4.4 1.04E+04 1.04E+04 0.0 1.04E+04 0.0 ‐3.48E+01 ‐4.82E+02 1283.2 ‐1.34E+03 3758.0 2.94E+04 2.87E+04 ‐2.5 2.74E+04 ‐6.9
5.21E+08 5.13E+08 ‐1.4 5.02E+08 ‐3.6 1.27E+08 1.25E+08 ‐1.8 1.22E+08 ‐4.4 4.47E+08 4.47E+08 0.0 4.47E+08 0.0 ‐7.60E+06 ‐2.64E+07 247.4 ‐6.29E+07 727.0 1.09E+09 1.06E+09 ‐2.6 1.01E+09 ‐7.3
kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.59E+08 ‐1.4 2.54E+08 ‐3.6 3.74E+07 3.68E+07 ‐1.8 3.58E+07 ‐4.4 2.60E+08 2.60E+08 0.0 2.60E+08 0.0 ‐8.36E+06 ‐1.98E+07 137.4 ‐4.20E+07 402.6 5.52E+08 5.36E+08 ‐2.9 5.07E+08 ‐8.1
kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 7.88E+10 ‐1.4 7.71E+10 ‐3.5 1.20E+09 1.18E+09 ‐1.8 1.15E+09 ‐4.4 1.14E+11 1.14E+11 0.0 1.14E+11 0.0 ‐6.04E+09 ‐1.27E+10 110.6 ‐2.55E+10 322.7 1.89E+11 1.82E+11 ‐4.1 1.67E+11 ‐11.8
kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.38E+08 ‐1.5 8.20E+08 ‐3.7 1.12E+08 1.10E+08 ‐1.7 1.07E+08 ‐4.4 7.47E+08 7.47E+08 0.0 7.47E+08 0.0 ‐2.72E+07 ‐6.33E+07 132.4 ‐1.33E+08 387.8 1.68E+09 1.63E+09 ‐3.0 1.54E+09 ‐8.4
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.23E+10 ‐1.5 1.20E+10 ‐3.7 4.43E+08 4.35E+08 ‐1.8 4.24E+08 ‐4.4 6.35E+10 6.35E+10 0.0 6.35E+10 0.0 ‐5.68E+08 ‐1.24E+09 117.4 ‐2.52E+09 342.8 7.58E+10 7.49E+10 ‐1.1 7.34E+10 ‐3.2
kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 9.28E+08 ‐1.6 9.05E+08 ‐4.1 1.91E+06 1.88E+06 ‐1.8 1.83E+06 ‐4.4 1.44E+08 1.44E+08 0.0 1.44E+08 0.0 ‐9.83E+05 ‐2.11E+06 115.0 ‐4.28E+06 336.0 1.09E+09 1.07E+09 ‐1.5 1.05E+09 ‐3.8
kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.66E+09 ‐1.6 1.62E+09 ‐4.0 1.24E+07 1.22E+07 ‐1.8 1.19E+07 ‐4.4 5.64E+09 5.64E+09 0.0 5.64E+09 0.0 ‐7.13E+06 ‐1.54E+07 116.6 ‐3.14E+07 340.5 7.33E+09 7.30E+09 ‐0.5 7.24E+09 ‐1.3
kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.70E+08 ‐1.5 3.62E+08 ‐3.8 2.32E+07 2.28E+07 ‐1.8 2.22E+07 ‐4.4 1.28E+09 1.28E+09 0.0 1.28E+09 0.0 ‐1.18E+07 ‐2.52E+07 114.7 ‐5.12E+07 335.3 1.67E+09 1.65E+09 ‐1.2 1.62E+09 ‐3.3
kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.08E+10 ‐1.5 1.05E+10 ‐3.8 2.13E+08 2.09E+08 ‐1.8 2.03E+08 ‐4.6 2.19E+10 2.19E+10 0.0 2.19E+10 0.0 ‐3.74E+08 ‐7.93E+08 112.4 ‐1.60E+09 328.2 3.27E+10 3.21E+10 ‐1.8 3.10E+10 ‐5.1
kg oil eq 7.30E+10 7.20E+10 ‐1.4 7.04E+10 ‐3.6 7.21E+09 7.08E+09 ‐1.8 6.89E+09 ‐4.4 5.70E+10 5.70E+10 0.0 5.70E+10 0.0 ‐2.48E+09 ‐5.05E+09 103.7 ‐9.99E+09 302.9 1.35E+11 1.31E+11 ‐2.8 1.24E+11 ‐7.7
m3 5.77E+09 5.68E+09 ‐1.6 5.54E+09 ‐3.9 3.76E+07 3.70E+07 ‐1.8 3.60E+07 ‐4.4 8.57E+09 8.57E+09 0.0 8.57E+09 0.0 ‐6.00E+07 ‐1.30E+08 117.3 ‐2.65E+08 342.3 1.43E+10 1.42E+10 ‐1.1 1.39E+10 ‐3.0
kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.87E+07 ‐1.6 4.75E+07 ‐4.1 1.09E+05 1.07E+05 ‐1.8 1.04E+05 ‐4.5 7.94E+06 7.94E+06 0.0 7.94E+06 0.0 ‐1.04E+05 ‐2.44E+05 135.7 ‐5.14E+05 396.4 5.74E+07 5.65E+07 ‐1.6 5.50E+07 ‐4.2
kg N eq 3.42E+08 3.37E+08 ‐1.6 3.29E+08 ‐4.0 1.39E+07 1.37E+07 ‐1.8 1.33E+07 ‐4.4 5.72E+07 5.72E+07 0.0 5.72E+07 0.0 8.65E+06 5.57E+06 ‐35.6 ‐3.66E+05 ‐104.2 4.22E+08 4.13E+08 ‐2.1 3.99E+08 ‐5.5
m2a 8.12E+10 7.99E+10 ‐1.6 7.79E+10 ‐4.1 3.47E+07 3.41E+07 ‐1.8 3.32E+07 ‐4.4 3.72E+09 3.72E+09 0.0 3.72E+09 0.0 ‐1.42E+08 ‐3.01E+08 111.1 ‐6.04E+08 324.1 8.48E+10 8.33E+10 ‐1.8 8.10E+10 ‐4.5
m2a 9.39E+08 9.25E+08 ‐1.5 9.03E+08 ‐3.9 8.97E+07 8.81E+07 ‐1.8 8.57E+07 ‐4.5 1.03E+09 1.03E+09 0.0 1.03E+09 0.0 ‐3.32E+07 ‐7.12E+07 114.5 ‐1.45E+08 335.1 2.03E+09 1.98E+09 ‐2.7 1.88E+09 ‐7.5
m2 7.58E+07 7.46E+07 ‐1.6 7.29E+07 ‐3.9 1.03E+07 1.02E+07 ‐1.8 9.88E+06 ‐4.4 2.81E+07 2.81E+07 0.0 2.81E+07 0.0 ‐1.07E+06 ‐2.16E+06 101.6 ‐4.27E+06 298.2 1.13E+08 1.11E+08 ‐2.2 1.07E+08 ‐5.9
DALY 3.77E+05 3.72E+05 ‐1.4 3.64E+05 ‐3.6 3.91E+04 3.84E+04 ‐1.8 3.73E+04 ‐4.4 3.73E+05 3.73E+05 0.0 3.73E+05 0.0 ‐1.16E+04 ‐2.79E+04 140.2 ‐5.92E+04 409.7 7.77E+05 7.55E+05 ‐2.9 7.15E+05 ‐8.1
species.yr 5.74E+03 5.65E+03 ‐1.6 5.51E+03 ‐3.9 1.82E+02 1.79E+02 ‐1.8 1.74E+02 ‐4.4 2.12E+03 2.12E+03 0.0 2.12E+03 0.0 ‐5.44E+01 ‐1.30E+02 140.0 ‐2.77E+02 408.9 7.98E+03 7.81E+03 ‐2.1 7.53E+03 ‐5.7
$ 1.18E+12 1.16E+12 ‐1.4 1.13E+12 ‐3.6 1.16E+11 1.14E+11 ‐1.8 1.11E+11 ‐4.4 9.18E+11 9.18E+11 0.0 9.18E+11 0.0 ‐3.99E+10 ‐8.12E+10 103.7 ‐1.61E+11 302.9 2.17E+12 2.11E+12 ‐2.8 2.00E+12 ‐7.7
185
 Combined scenario
Production Transport Use End‐of‐life Total

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario

Baseline scenario
compared to 

compared to 

compared to 

compared to 

compared to 
Combined 

Combined 

Combined 

Combined 

Combined 
% change 

% change 

% change 

% change 

% change 
scenario

scenario

scenario

scenario

scenario
baseline

baseline

baseline

baseline

baseline
Indicator Unit
Climate change kg CO2 eq 2.13E+11 2.00E+11 ‐6 2.07E+10 3.22E+09 ‐84 1.85E+11 1.42E+11 ‐23 ‐6.38E+09 ‐3.29E+10 415 4.13E+11 3.12E+11 ‐24
Ozone depletion kg CFC‐11 eq 1.65E+04 1.33E+04 ‐19 2.63E+03 4.19E+02 ‐84 1.04E+04 8.12E+03 ‐22 ‐3.48E+01 ‐1.34E+03 3758 2.94E+04 2.05E+04 ‐30
Photochemical oxidant formation kg NMVOC 5.21E+08 4.94E+08 ‐5 1.27E+08 3.93E+07 ‐69 4.47E+08 3.48E+08 ‐22 ‐7.60E+06 ‐6.29E+07 727 1.09E+09 8.19E+08 ‐25
Particulate matter formation kg PM10 eq 2.63E+08 2.62E+08 ‐1 3.74E+07 1.51E+07 ‐60 2.60E+08 2.02E+08 ‐22 ‐8.36E+06 ‐4.20E+07 403 5.52E+08 4.36E+08 ‐21
Ionising radiation kg U235 eq 7.99E+10 8.95E+10 12 1.20E+09 3.89E+08 ‐68 1.14E+11 8.54E+10 ‐25 ‐6.04E+09 ‐2.55E+10 323 1.89E+11 1.50E+11 ‐21
Terrestrial acidification kg SO2 eq 8.51E+08 8.54E+08 0 1.12E+08 4.67E+07 ‐58 7.47E+08 5.72E+08 ‐23 ‐2.72E+07 ‐1.33E+08 388 1.68E+09 1.34E+09 ‐20
Human toxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.25E+10 1.23E+10 ‐1 4.43E+08 1.20E+08 ‐73 6.35E+10 5.36E+10 ‐16 ‐5.68E+08 ‐2.52E+09 343 7.58E+10 6.35E+10 ‐16
Terrestrial ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 9.43E+08 5.61E+08 ‐40 1.91E+06 3.43E+05 ‐82 1.44E+08 1.22E+08 ‐15 ‐9.83E+05 ‐4.28E+06 336 1.09E+09 6.80E+08 ‐38
MIDPOINTS

Freshwater ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 1.68E+09 1.39E+09 ‐17 1.24E+07 3.06E+06 ‐75 5.64E+09 4.86E+09 ‐14 ‐7.13E+06 ‐3.14E+07 341 7.33E+09 6.23E+09 ‐15
Marine ecotoxicity kg 1,4‐DB eq 3.76E+08 3.54E+08 ‐6 2.32E+07 9.06E+06 ‐61 1.28E+09 1.08E+09 ‐16 ‐1.18E+07 ‐5.12E+07 335 1.67E+09 1.39E+09 ‐17
Metal depletion kg Fe eq 1.09E+10 1.05E+10 ‐4 2.13E+08 9.62E+07 ‐55 2.19E+10 1.81E+10 ‐17 ‐3.74E+08 ‐1.60E+09 328 3.27E+10 2.70E+10 ‐17
Fossil depletion kg oil eq 7.30E+10 6.56E+10 ‐10 7.21E+09 1.13E+09 ‐84 5.70E+10 4.41E+10 ‐23 ‐2.48E+09 ‐9.99E+09 303 1.35E+11 1.01E+11 ‐25
Water depletion m3 5.77E+09 1.06E+09 ‐82 3.76E+07 9.49E+06 ‐75 8.57E+09 7.47E+09 ‐13 ‐6.00E+07 ‐2.65E+08 342 1.43E+10 8.28E+09 ‐42
Freshwater eutrophication kg P eq 4.95E+07 4.56E+07 ‐8 1.09E+05 4.57E+04 ‐58 7.94E+06 6.59E+06 ‐17 ‐1.04E+05 ‐5.14E+05 396 5.74E+07 5.17E+07 ‐10
Marine eutrophication kg N eq 3.42E+08 2.66E+08 ‐22 1.39E+07 4.36E+06 ‐69 5.72E+07 4.52E+07 ‐21 8.65E+06 ‐3.66E+05 ‐104 4.22E+08 3.15E+08 ‐25
Agricultural land occupation m2a 8.12E+10 8.20E+10 1 3.47E+07 1.06E+07 ‐70 3.72E+09 2.91E+09 ‐22 ‐1.42E+08 ‐6.04E+08 324 8.48E+10 8.43E+10 ‐1
Urban land occupation m2a 9.39E+08 9.47E+08 1 8.97E+07 2.56E+07 ‐72 1.03E+09 8.19E+08 ‐21 ‐3.32E+07 ‐1.45E+08 335 2.03E+09 1.65E+09 ‐19
Natural land transformation m2 7.58E+07 5.40E+07 ‐29 1.03E+07 1.52E+06 ‐85 2.81E+07 2.21E+07 ‐22 ‐1.07E+06 ‐4.27E+06 298 1.13E+08 7.33E+07 ‐35
ENDPOINTS

Human health DALY 3.77E+05 3.58E+05 ‐5 3.91E+04 8.52E+03 ‐78 3.73E+05 2.90E+05 ‐22 ‐1.16E+04 ‐5.92E+04 410 7.77E+05 5.98E+05 ‐23
Ecosystem diversity species.yr 5.74E+03 4.41E+03 ‐23 1.82E+02 2.87E+01 ‐84 2.12E+03 1.68E+03 ‐21 ‐5.44E+01 ‐2.77E+02 409 7.98E+03 5.85E+03 ‐27
Resource availability $ 1.18E+12 1.06E+12 ‐10 1.16E+11 1.82E+10 ‐84 9.18E+11 7.10E+11 ‐23 ‐3.99E+10 ‐1.61E+11 303 2.17E+12 1.62E+12 ‐25

186
 Annex 4: Glossary
Term Definition
This midpoint impact category refers to the accumulation of acidifying
substances (e.g. sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid) in the water particles in
Acidification suspension in the atmosphere. Deposited onto the ground by rain, acidifying
pollutants have a wide variety of impacts on soil, groundwater, surface
waters, biological organisms, ecosystems and materials (buildings).
Agricultural land This midpoint impact category refers to the amount of agricultural area
occupation occupied multiplied by the time of occupation.
Animal fibres Fibres of animal origin such as wool, alpaca, camel hair, and silk.
Processes to remove the natural and artificial impurities in fabrics to obtain
Bleaching
clear whites for finished fabric or in preparation for dyeing and finishing.
A yarn obtained when two or more staple fibres are combined in a textile
process for producing spun yarns (e.g. at opening, carding, or drawing) or a
Blend
fabric that contains a blended yarn (of the same fibre content) in the warp and
filling.
Bt (Bacillus A spore forming bacterium that produces crystals of proteins which are toxic
thuringiensis) to many species of insects.
Process that wool must undergo prior to spinning into woollen yarn. During
Carbonisation the wool carbonising process all vegetable matter contained in the wool will
be removed in preparation for carding and spinning into yarn.
Caustic soda Sodium hydroxide.
Chemical that combines with metal ions and removes them from their sphere
Chelating agent
of action, also called sequestrant.
This midpoint impact category is also referred to as 'global warming'. Global
warming refers to the increase of the average temperature of the Earth's
surface which is widely accepted to be caused by the increased concentration
Climate change
of greenhouse gases (i.e. carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
fluorocarbons (e.g. CFCs and HCFCs), and others) in the atmosphere as a
result of human activities.
This endpoint category corresponds to the aggregation of the following
midpoint impact categories: climate change, terrestrial acidification,
freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, terrestrial ecotoxicity,
freshwater ecotoxicity, marine ecotoxicity, agricultural land occupation,
Damage to
urban land occupation and natural land transformation. The unit of the
ecosystem
corresponding indicator is ‘species*yr’, which is a measure of the number of
diversity
species that potentially becomes extinct and the time span of this extinction.
In other words, a value of ‘x species*yr’ could quantify a threat to
biodiversity as, for example, x species disappearing for 1 year, 2x species for
6 months, x/2 species for 2 years.
This endpoint category corresponds to the aggregation of the following
midpoint impact categories: climate change, ozone depletion, photochemical
Damage to human oxidant formation, particulate matter formation, ionising radiation and human
health toxicity. The unit of the corresponding indicator is 'disability-adjusted life
year' (DALY)' which is a measure of the overall number of years lost due to
ill, disability or early death.

187
 Term Definition
This endpoint category corresponds to the aggregation of the following
Damage to midpoint impact categories: water depletion, metal depletion and fossil fuel
resource depletion. The corresponding indicator is expressed as the surplus cost which
availability will be necessary in future to have access to the basket of limited resources
that are currently exploited by human kind.
The process of eliminating sizing, generally starch, from gray goods prior to
Desizing
applying special finishes or bleaches.
A synthetic cleaning agent containing surfactants that do not precipitate in
Detergent
hard water and have the ability to emulsify oil and suspend dirt.
A process of colouring fibres, yarns, or fabrics with either natural or synthetic
Dyeing
dyes.
This midpoint impact category refers to how chemicals affect the
environment and the organisms living in it. Ecotoxicity indicators assess
Ecotoxicity
when chemical releases are likely to result in toxic doses that exceed
acceptable levels.
Enzymes Proteins that catalyse chemical reactions.
This midpoint impact category refers to processes that lead to water bodies,
such as lakes or rivers, receiving excess chemical nutrients – typically
compounds containing nitrogen or phosphorus – that stimulate excessive
Eutrophication plant growth (e.g. algae). Nutrients can come from many sources, such as
fertilisers applied to agricultural fields and golf courses, deposition of
nitrogen from the atmosphere, erosion of soil containing nutrients, and
sewage treatment plant discharges.
Flax The plant from which the cellulosic fibre linen is obtained.
Fossil fuel
This midpoint impact category measures the demand of fossil fuel resources.
depletion
A term applied to fabrics produced on a flat-knitting machine, such as
Fully-fashioned hosiery, sweaters, and underwear, which have been shaped by adding or
reducing stitches.
A coarse, durable bast fibre of Cannabis sativa found all over the world.
Hemp
Used primarily for twines, cordage, halyards, and tarred riggings.
This midpoint impact category characterises health risks to humans by
quantitatively assessing the risks posed by chemicals to human health and the
Human toxicity environment. This indicator is based on ‘risk characterisation ratios’ that
indicate when chemical releases are likely to result in toxic doses that exceed
acceptable levels.
This midpoint impact category assesses the formation of ionising radiations
Ionising radiation
emitted from radioactive materials.
High temperature piece dyeing in which the dye liquor is circulated via a
Jet dyeing
Venturi jet thus providing the driving force to move the loop of fabric.
Process of boiling cellulosic materials in alkaline liquors in a kier at or above
Kier boiling
atmospheric pressure.
A method of constructing fabric by interlocking series of loops of one or
Knitting
more yarns.

188
 Term Definition
Cellulosic fibres derived from the stem of the flax plant or a fabric made from
these fibres. Linen fibres are much stronger and more lustrous than cotton;
Linen they yield cool, absorbent fabrics that wrinkle easily. Fabrics with linen-like
texture and coolness but with good wrinkle resistance can be produced from
manufactured fibres and blends.
In wet processing the ratio of the weight of liquid used to the weight of goods
Liquor ratio
treated.
An oil or emulsion finish applied to fibres to prevent damage during textile
Lubricant
processing or to knitting yarns to make them more pliable.
This midpoint impact category refers to the decreasing availability of metal
Metal depletion
resources.
Natural land This midpoint impact category refers to the natural land transformed as a
transformation consequence of anthropogenic activities.
NMVOC is the abbreviation for non-methane volatile organic compounds. It
is a generic term for a large variety of chemically different compounds, like
for example, benzene, ethanol, formaldehyde, cyclohexane, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane or acetone. Essentially, NMVOCs are identical to VOCs, but
NMVOC
with methane excluded. Sometimes NMVOC is also used as a sum parameter
for emissions, where all NMVOC emissions are added up per weight into one
figure. In absence of more detailed data, this can be a very coarse parameter
for pollution, e.g. for summer smog or indoor air pollution.
This midpoint impact category refers to the thinning of the ozone layer, as
Ozone depletion know as ‘ozone hole’. This mechanism is mainly due to the anthropogenic
emission of brominated and chlorinated substances like CFCs.
This midpoint impact category tracks the emissions of primary particulate
Particulate matter
matter less than 10 m (PM10) and secondary particulate matter precursors
formation
like nitrogen oxides (NOX), ammonia (NH3), and sulphur dioxide (SO2).
This midpoint impact category refers to chemical reactions induced by solar
Photochemical light between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOC),
oxidant formation commonly emitted in the combustion of fossil fuels. It provokes high levels
of ozone and other chemicals toxic for humans and the environment.
A manufactured fibre in which the fibre-forming substance is any long chain
Polyester fibre synthetic polymer composed of at least 85 % by weight of an ester of
dihydric alcohol and terephthalic acid (FTC definition).
Polypropylene A manufactured, olefin fibre made from polymers or copolymers of
fibre propylene.
A process for producing a pattern on yarns, warp, fabric, or carpet by any of a
Printing
large number of printing methods.
An operation to remove the sizing and tint used on the warp yarn in weaving
Scouring
and, in general, to clean the fabric prior to dyeing.
A fine, strong, continuous filament produced by the larva of certain insects,
Silk fibre
especially the silkworm, when constructing its cocoons.
The process of burning off protruding fibres from yarn or fabric by passing it
over a flame or heated copper plates. Singeing gives the fabric a smooth
Singeing
surface and is necessary for fabrics that are to be printed and for fabrics
where smooth finishes are desired.

189
 Term Definition
A generic term for compounds that are applied to warp yarn to bind the fibre
Sizing
together and stiffen the yarn to provide abrasion resistance during weaving.
Sodium hydroxide Caustic metallic base used in soap production.
Softener A product designed to impart a soft mellowness to the fabric.
The process or processes used in the production of single yarns or of fabrics
Spinning
generated directly from polymer.
The process of passing a fibre or thread through the thickness of fabric layers
Stitching to secure them. In composite manufacture, stitching is used to make preforms
or to improve damage tolerance of complex-shaped parts.
A material that can greatly reduce the surface tension of water when used in
Surfactant
very low concentrations.
Any type of material made from fibres or other extended linear materials such
Textile
as thread or yarn.
Top making Process of converting raw wool into a yarn suitable for spinning.
A cluster of soft yarns drawn through a fabric and projecting from the surface
Tuft
in the form of cut yarns or loops.
Carpet produced by a tufting machine instead of a loom. It is an outgrowth of
Tufted carpet
hand-tufted bedspreads.
Urban land This midpoint impact category refers to the urban area transformed as a
transformation consequence of anthropogenic activities.
A textile fibre of vegetable origin, such as cotton, kapok, jute, ramie, and
Vegetable fibre
flax.
A manufactured fibre composed of regenerated cellulose, as well as
Viscose (a type of manufactured fibres composed of regenerated cellulose in which substituents
rayon) have replaced not more than 15 % of the hydrogens of the hydroxyl groups
(FTC definition).
Warp knitting A type of knitting in which the yarns generally run lengthwise in the fabric.
This midpoint impact category refers to the withdrawal of water from the
Water depletion different sources (rivers, seas, groundwater) for use by humans. This water is
not returned to the source.
The method or process of interlacing two yarns of similar materials so that
they cross each other at right angles to produce woven fabric. The warp
Weaving
yarns, or ends, run lengthwise in the fabric, and the filling threads (weft), or
picks, run from side to side.
A common type of knitting, in which one continuous thread runs crosswise in
Weft knitting the fabric making all of the loops in one course. Weft knitting types are
circular and flat knitting.
Generally used to refer to fabric composed of two sets of yarns, warp and
Woven fabric
filling, that is formed weaving, which is the interlacing of these sets of yarns.
A generic term for a continuous strand of textile fibres, filaments, or material
Yarn in a form suitable for knitting, weaving, or otherwise intertwining to form a
textile fabric.
From Celanese Acetate (2001) for the textile terms. 

190